346 
Mr. J. W. Tutt on recent papers on 
I may state at the outset, that this paper is not ofifered 
in a spirit of adverse criticism to any one of the particular 
lines indicated by, and worked out at length by, these 
various authors. My object is to point out where the 
different schemes of classification agree and where they 
differ, and to suggest some reasons for the more important 
points of difference. It is abundantly clear that, so far 
as the heterogeneous mixture, which has long since 
passed under the name of Tineina, is concerned. Dr. 
Chapman is the only author who has really faced the 
diflSculty, or who has examined the material sufficiently 
to obtain even approximate results. The other hetero- 
geneous group, BoMBYCES, has been well sifted by all 
the authors. 
It is, of course, to be expected that some errors will 
be made, and some erroneous conclusions reached, by 
the study of any one set of characters separately; for 
it is only by a combination of many characters that we 
can ever reach a satisfactory classification. When, there- 
fore, we find Chapman, Comstock, Dyar, and Hampson 
agreeing that the pupa, the jugum, the generalised con- 
dition of the setiferous tubercles of the larva, and the low 
developmental stage of the neuration all unite in indica- 
ting that the true place of the Micropterygidse and Hepia- 
lidce is at the bottom of the Lepidoptera, the conclusion 
must be looked upon as one not likely to be upset by 
the study of any other set of specialised characters, but, 
on the contrary, as one that will be rather strengthened 
thereby. 
However satisfied we may be with regard to Comstock^s 
Jtjgatj:, his subdivision of the Frenatj*: into families 
which retain the frenulum, and families that tend to lose 
it, is not at all satisfactory. Mr. Hampson points out 
(Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., p. 255) that this is not a natural 
arrangement, and indicates instances in various families 
of Lepidoptera in which certain genera have lost the 
frenulum, whilst the great mass of the genera (or species) 
in the family have retained it, e.g. : Hiraantopterus in 
the Zygseniclse ; Cleosiris in the Callidulidse ; many genera 
in the Drepanulidae, such as Phalacra, Drapetodes, Oretay 
and Gilix; Batarda in the Lymantriidse ) Hypulia and 
Genusa in the Boarmiinse ; and many genera of Geome- 
trinse. This arrangement struck me at once as being 
very similar to, and of much the same antiquated 
