﻿PREFACE. 
  111. 
  

  

  lation 
  of 
  detail, 
  and 
  with 
  a 
  wider 
  grip 
  of 
  general 
  principles, 
  will 
  be 
  

   able 
  to 
  suggest 
  some 
  advance 
  with 
  regard 
  to 
  the 
  phyletic 
  relationships 
  

   of 
  the 
  genera 
  and 
  species 
  with 
  which 
  we 
  have 
  here 
  attempted 
  to 
  deal. 
  

  

  We 
  have, 
  here 
  and 
  there, 
  in 
  seeking 
  for 
  facts 
  by 
  means 
  of 
  which 
  

   to 
  explain 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  difficulties 
  presented 
  by 
  the 
  species 
  of 
  our 
  

   British 
  fauna, 
  been 
  compelled 
  to 
  study 
  material 
  from 
  foreign 
  countries, 
  

   but, 
  as 
  has 
  already 
  been 
  noticed 
  in 
  our 
  account 
  of 
  other 
  groups, 
  we 
  

   have, 
  in 
  Britain, 
  representative 
  species 
  of 
  almost 
  all 
  the 
  main 
  

   Pahearctic 
  groups, 
  e.g., 
  bennetii 
  among 
  the 
  Agdistids, 
  litlwdactyla 
  

   among 
  the 
  Oidasmatophorids, 
  pallidum 
  among 
  the 
  Buckleriids, 
  and 
  so 
  

   on. 
  This 
  is, 
  perhaps, 
  not 
  altogether 
  an 
  unmixed 
  evil, 
  for, 
  although 
  

   it 
  tempts 
  the 
  purely 
  British 
  collector 
  a 
  little 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  narrow 
  path 
  to 
  

   which 
  he 
  strangely 
  loves 
  to 
  confine 
  himself, 
  it 
  allows 
  one, 
  on 
  the 
  other 
  

   hand, 
  to 
  strike 
  out 
  a 
  little 
  as 
  it 
  were, 
  and 
  formulate 
  some 
  general 
  

   suggestions 
  that 
  may 
  prove 
  of 
  some 
  small 
  value 
  as 
  a 
  foundation 
  for 
  

   similar 
  work 
  outside 
  our 
  own, 
  and 
  comprising 
  at 
  least 
  the 
  whole 
  of 
  

   the 
  Palasarctic, 
  Alucitid 
  fauna. 
  

  

  There 
  are 
  many 
  points 
  in 
  this 
  volume 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  collector, 
  apart 
  

   from 
  the 
  biological 
  student, 
  will 
  possibly 
  take 
  objection. 
  The 
  mere 
  

   necessary 
  insistence 
  on 
  the 
  proper 
  name 
  for 
  the 
  group, 
  the 
  treatment 
  

   of 
  the 
  Agdistids 
  from 
  the 
  larval 
  and 
  pupal 
  standpoints, 
  the 
  cutting 
  up 
  

   of 
  the 
  superfamily 
  into 
  small 
  natural 
  groups 
  of 
  similar 
  structure, 
  the 
  

   creation 
  of 
  many 
  new 
  genera 
  to 
  represent 
  these 
  groups, 
  and 
  other 
  

   similar 
  points 
  will 
  afford 
  sufficient 
  food 
  for 
  the 
  criticism 
  of 
  the 
  

   dilettanti 
  apart 
  from 
  the 
  serious 
  student. 
  But 
  who 
  will 
  say 
  that 
  our 
  

   treatment 
  of 
  the 
  Agdistids 
  is 
  not 
  necessary, 
  unless 
  we 
  be 
  prepared 
  to 
  

   go 
  on 
  for 
  ever 
  assuming 
  that 
  the 
  Agdistids 
  form 
  a 
  little 
  genus 
  of 
  

   closely- 
  allied 
  species, 
  that 
  only 
  a 
  few 
  specialists 
  ever 
  try 
  to 
  separate, 
  

   because 
  of 
  their 
  superficial 
  similarity 
  in 
  the 
  imaginal 
  stage. 
  This 
  

   method 
  is 
  perhaps 
  simple, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  scientific, 
  and 
  we 
  trust 
  that 
  

   someone, 
  well 
  placed 
  for 
  a 
  study 
  of 
  this 
  interesting 
  little 
  group, 
  will 
  

   soon 
  give 
  us 
  a 
  well-digested 
  summary 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  contained 
  therein, 
  

   on 
  a 
  sound 
  phyletic 
  basis. 
  Even 
  the 
  Platyptiliids 
  are 
  not 
  at 
  all 
  so 
  

   homogeneous 
  as 
  their 
  imagines 
  would 
  lead 
  one 
  to 
  believe, 
  and 
  

   Eucnemidophorus 
  and 
  Amblyptilia, 
  characteristic 
  Platyptiliids 
  in 
  their 
  

   imaginal 
  stages, 
  present 
  structural 
  features 
  in 
  the 
  pupal 
  and 
  larval 
  

   stages, 
  that 
  are 
  not 
  at 
  all 
  easy 
  to 
  understand, 
  and 
  make 
  their 
  real 
  

   relationship 
  to 
  each 
  other 
  and 
  the 
  remaining 
  Platyptiliids, 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  

   more 
  than 
  ordinary 
  difficulty 
  to 
  explain 
  with 
  satisfaction. 
  The 
  

   Stenoptiliids, 
  too, 
  the 
  species 
  of 
  which 
  form 
  a 
  very 
  homogeneous 
  little 
  

   group 
  inter 
  se, 
  with 
  very 
  distinct 
  Platyptiliid 
  characteristics, 
  are 
  very 
  

   difficult 
  to 
  locate 
  on 
  phylogenetic 
  grounds 
  with 
  the 
  remaining 
  

   Platyptiliid 
  sections. 
  The 
  Oxyptiliids, 
  however, 
  present 
  the 
  greatest 
  

   difficulties 
  of 
  all, 
  difficulties 
  that 
  are 
  not 
  lessened 
  by 
  our 
  comparative 
  

   (often 
  absolute) 
  ignorance 
  of 
  the 
  structural 
  features 
  of 
  the 
  early 
  stages 
  

   of 
  some 
  fairly 
  common 
  species. 
  Here 
  we 
  find 
  species, 
  e.g., 
  distans 
  

   and 
  laetus 
  so 
  similar 
  in 
  the 
  imaginal 
  stages, 
  that 
  the 
  eye 
  refuses 
  to 
  

   separate 
  them, 
  yet 
  so 
  different 
  in 
  their 
  larvae 
  and 
  pupa 
  3 
  , 
  that 
  ordinarily 
  

   one 
  would 
  be 
  justified 
  in 
  placing 
  them 
  in 
  different 
  genera. 
  We 
  have. 
  

   in 
  our 
  account 
  of 
  Oxyptilus 
  parvidactyla, 
  the 
  life-history 
  of 
  which 
  is 
  

   published 
  for 
  the 
  first 
  time 
  in 
  Britain, 
  utilised, 
  not 
  only 
  British 
  larval 
  

   and 
  pupal 
  material, 
  but 
  also 
  similar 
  material 
  from 
  the 
  south 
  of 
  France 
  ; 
  

   yet, 
  an 
  indication 
  of 
  difference 
  in 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  larval 
  tubercles. 
  

  

  