ATTACIDES. 267 



b. Coitus: Samiae — Somia cynthia, Cram., S. cecropia, Cram., 



S. promethea, Cram. 



c. Coitus : Rhescyntes — Rhescyntis erythrinae, Fab., R. 



cassandra, Cram., R. sylla, Cram., Ii. hippodamia, 

 Cram. 

 Tribus II : Ver^e. 

 Stirps i : Her^e.e. 

 Fam. i : Specios/e. 



a. Coitus : Pavoniae — Pavonia pyri, SchifF., P. spini, Schiff., 



P. carpini, SchifF. 



b. Coitus : Henioche [sic] — Heniocha appollonia, Cram. 

 Fam. 2 : Dilucid^e. 



a. Coitus : Saturniae — Saturnia maja, Dru. (proserpina, 



Fabr.J. 



b. Coitus : Pharathyrides [sic] — Pharathyris [sic] perspicilla, 



Stoll, P. cedonulli, Cram., P. pandiona, Cram. 



It may be here noted that in Tribe ii, the stirpes ii, iii and iv 

 comprise the Lymantriides, v the Melalophae, vi the Lithosiae, vii the 

 Hipocritae, viii the Callimorphae, ix the Hypeixompae, x the Lachneides, 

 xi the Eutrichae, xii the Trichodae, xiii the Heteromorphae. 



We have already stated (anted, vol. i., p. 126) our inability 

 to agree with Packard's views of the evolution of the Attacids from the 

 Citheroniidae {Ceratocampidae) through the Notodonts and Syntomids. 

 Both these last-named superfamilies belong to the upright-egged stirps, 

 the former in close connection with the Noctuids, the latter with 

 the Arctiids. With the near relationship of the Lachneids, 

 Dimorphids, Bombycids {sens, strict.), Citheroniids, Attacids, 

 Hemileucids and Sphingids, which he places on the same main 

 evolutionary stem we are of course in accord*. Later he re- 

 states his adherence to the alliances to which we take objection, 

 and hazards {Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc, xxxi., p. 141) the suggestion that 

 all the Bombycids except the Arctians and Lithosians (which are not 

 Bombycids in the sense that the latter are considered in this work) 

 may have evolved before the Sphingidae appeared, and goes on to 

 say that, judging by the characters of the head, antennae, thorax, and 

 especially of the neuration, the Sphingidae are far removed from the 

 Citheroniidae {Ceratocampidae) and their origin from the latter must have 

 been at least remote, whilst there must be some lost annectant forms 

 which originally connected them. 



Comstock places the Lacosomids among the Satumiina, but 

 Dyar points out (Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., viii., p. 202) that the former 

 belong to the generalised Frenatae, and adds that he believes the 

 resemblance of the imagines in the two groups to be fortuitous, the 

 result of convergence and not indicating close relationship ; that the 

 Lacosomid larvae are generalised, and the imagines specialised. 

 Later, however, Dyar notes {Trans. JV. Y. Acad. Sci., xiv., p. 51) that 



* Of the general relationship of the Lachneids, Dimorphids, Attacids, 

 Bombycids and Sphingids, Chapman writes that this gx-oup has (at least) three 

 branches : (1) The Lasiocampa and Eupterotida ; (2) Endromidae {Dimorphidae), 

 possibly passing by Aglia to \,d) the Citheroniidae and Sphingidae, (b) the Bombycidae 

 and Satitmiidae. He explains that his observations on the species of the Cochlidids, 

 Eacles and other species of Attacids, and Sphingids, together with the published 

 observations of Packard, Poulton, Weismann, and others, leave no room for doubt 

 that these families are related to the exclusion of the Geometrid stirps. 

 He observes that some Lachneid pupae can travel to and fro in their cocoons, whilst 

 the Dimorphids and Sphingids actually present instances of pupal emergence 

 from the cocoons [Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1896, p. 584). 



