2 [.EPIDOPTERA HETEROCERA 



4° I i]d nut accept the tliei iry of the accidental fixing of generic types by chance use. The sort of 

 case that arises is this : Hiibner perhaps makes a genus ami quotes eight European species; latei 

 Stephens, writing on English species, uses this generic name and quotes one species, being tin- on 

 English one; the theory holds that he fixes this as the type, whereas he had no such intention, ami 

 merely abstained from quoting the others because they do not oceui in England. I only accept limita- 

 tion of a genus where an author has expressly declared his intention to so limit it. An) other cmrse 

 would lead to interminable difficulty and contusion; any casual use of the generic name might he 

 equally treated as a limitation. 



5° In the case of specific names I correct barbarisms i) and misprints, whilst giving as much 

 orthographical latitude as possible. Certain American writers, especially Chambers, are the principal 

 offenders. The commonest of these barbarisms consists in attaching a termination (such as -ella) or word 

 (such as -albilla) to the nominative or genitive of another word; thus forming for example dcctpiusdla, 

 cavyaealbella, whereas additions can only be made to the stem of the word, and the correct forms heie 

 are deceptella, caryalbclla. Writers who do not know how to compound words in Latin have only them- 

 selves to blame if they exhibit their incompetence; it is much better for them to use simple words from 

 a dictionary. As a consequence ot this uncritical standpoint, these writers cannot remember accurately 

 their own barbarisms, and perpetually make fresh ones by misquoting them; Lord Walsingham has 

 strikingly instanced (Ent. M. Mag. Vol. 39, p. 25g) the nine different ways (all wrong) in which 

 Chambers himself spelt the name tritaeniella. On the same principle I reject wholly the gibberish- 

 names which are beginning to appear (also in America), and shall substitute proper names where 

 needful. If a name is not founded on grammar and commonsense, but is only an unmeaning string of 

 letters, it is impossible for anyone to remember it, and it would be necessary for all authors to verify it 

 on ever}- occasion of use by looking up the original and copying it letter for letter; such a proceeding 

 would be intolerable on any large scale. I take the opportunity of urging that in the interests of conve- 

 nience names should not be of more than three or at most four syllables; the cumbrous eight- or nine- 

 syllabled names of some authors are quite indefensible. To support errors such as those mentioned 

 above on the ground of priority is to make science the slave of ignorance, illiteracy, and inaccuracy. 



General Characters. — Head smooth or more or less rough; ocelli usually absent (present 

 in a few primitive species of Gracilaria): tongue well-developed. Antennae as long as forewings or 

 longer, rarely shorter, in (f simple, filiform. Labial palpi moderate or long, straight or curved, usually 

 slender, more or less pointed. Maxillary palpi normally three-jointed, filiform, porrected, often curved, 

 seldom minute or rudimentary. Anterior and middle tarsi usually long; posterior tibiae smooth or 

 loosely haired or with regular series of fine bristles above. Forewings lanceolate or very narrowly elon- 

 gate; ib simple, cell long, two-thirds to three-fourths of wing, 2 from towards lower angle, 4 usually 

 from angle, 7 to costa, 8 usually separate or absent, 11 from about one-third of cell or near base or 

 absent, upper margin of cell usually obsolete on basal third. Hindwings one-half to two-thirds, lanceo- 

 late or linear, cilia 2-8; ic absent, cell open between 4 and 5, 5 and 6 often stalked, 6 and 7 approxi- 

 mated anteriorly or seldom stalked. 



Larva with prolegs on segments 7, 8, 9, and i3 (not on 10); mining leaves, bark, or fruits, later 

 sometimes within a folded leaf. 



Pupa with first four segments of abdomen fixed; protruded from cocoon in emergence. 



A well characterised family, representing a line of development of which I am unable at present 

 to determine the origin. It has undoubted general relationship to the Tineid and Plutellid groups, 



1) As an instance of misprint I quote the absurd Acrocercops pnosmodiella. Busck. stated to be named from its food plant Pnosmodium; the 

 real foodplant is Onosmodium, and I have corrected the name accordingly to onosmodiella. 



