112 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



V. Subfam. : Eutrichin^e. 



1. Tribe : Odonestidi — Odonestis (type O. pruni, L.), &c. 



2. Tribe: Eutrichidi — Eutricha (type E. quercifolia, L.), Gastropacha (type 

 G. ilicifolia, L.), &c. 



The above simply suggests the main lines on which the 

 structural peculiarities appear to run. The Macrothylaciids certainly 

 appear to fall into the same subfamily as the Metanastriids (sens, 

 sttict.), although in different tribes. This will indicate our dis- 

 agreement with Kirby, who sinks Metanastria, Hb., as being included 

 in Dendrolimus, Germ. We are quite unable also to appreciate 

 the lumping necessary to make up Kirby's genus Dendrolimus (Cat., 

 pp. 813 — 816), in which we find pint, L., aconyta, Cram., hyrtaca, 

 Cram., bipars, Walk., capensis, Linn., mexicana, Druce, and many 

 other species included. In the British Museum collection, the 

 material (cocoons and imagines) belonging to Metanastria hyrtaca, 

 Cram., certainly suggests distinct affinities with the Macrothylaciids, 

 although hardly of a generic character, whilst the relation- 

 ship of M. latipennis thereto is still more marked, although 

 the latter appears to be distinctly a form with characters suggesting 

 affinity with both the Macrothylaciids and Dendrolimids (pini), 

 these intermediate characters being shared by Metanastria ampla, 

 Walk, (referred by Kirby to Lebeda), the £ showing very distinct 

 Dendrolimid tendencies. M. punctata, Walk., is also near M. 

 a??ipla, but still nearer to D. pini, possessing a cocoon somewhat 

 resembling that of the Cosmotrichids, the larva also with characters re- 

 minding one of Cosmotriche {Rotatoria) and Dendrolimus [pini). M. rubi, 

 also classed in the British Museum coll. as a Metanastria, has less 

 distinct Eutrichid affinities than any of the species already men- 

 tioned, and, as we have elsewhere stated (posted) somewhat at 

 length, its nearest relative (so far as we have detected) appears to be 

 M. psidii, Salle. Gloveria (olivacea, H.-Edw.) is as distinctly Metanas- 

 triid as are many of the species included in the British Museum col- 

 lection in Metanastria, and would appear to have more in common 

 with Macrothylacia ?'ubi, than the latter has with such forms as capensis, 

 Linn, (pithy ocampa, Stoll) and obscura, Walk., which probably again 

 have more in common with Pachypasa otus. One suspects, from a 

 study of the specialised imagines, that Syrastrena (minor, Moore) 

 and Bharetta (cinnamomea, Moore) belong to the Metanastriid rather 

 than to the Eutrichid (sens, strict?) stem. 



So far as larval characters are available, it is clear that Kirby's 

 family Pinaridae belongs to the Eutrichid stem. Hampson rightly 

 unites (but much too closely), in the British Museum collection, such 

 species as serratilinea, Gn. (placed in Napta, Kirby, Cat., p. 830), 

 cajani, Vins. (placed in Libethra, Kirby, Cat., p. 820) and margine- 

 punctata, Guer. (placed in Borocera, Kirby, Cat., p. 85 7 \ all of which 

 are distinctly Eutrichid, though in varying degrees. Suana, as repre- 

 sented by concolor, Walk., is also Eutrichid. It is strange how these 

 evidently related species tend to exhibit characters found in different 

 subfamilies, for, whilst the ova of serratilinea are of the banded type 

 (well illustrated in the egg of Eutricha quercifolia), and laid roughly 

 in rows, those of cajani are laid round a twig, and whilst the 

 cocoon of Suana (concolor) is Cosmotrichid, those of cajani and 

 marginepunctata have a tendency to the compact form of Pachygastria 

 (but are flexible and thin), and that of serratilinea appears to be 



