350 Mr. J. W. Tutt on recent papers on 
view, and substantiate or upset Dr. Chapman's conclu- 
sions thereon. 
On one point, however, all are agreed, and that is, 
that the Micropterygidse and Hepialidse come at the 
very bottom of the list, whilst these are followed by 
various families which have been hitherto placed high up 
in the scale. The following comparison of the results 
obtained by Dr. Chapman and Messrs. Hampson and 
Dyar, in that section called by Dr. Chapman Incom- 
plete, and by Professor Comstock subdivided into 
JtjgattE and Generalised Frenatj^, may prove inter- 
esting. There is really no need to place Comstock^s 
detailed arrangement side by side with these, since Dyar 
says there are only two points in which his classification 
contradicts that of Comstock. One is the failure of 
Comstock to separate the Euchromiidse [the Arctiid] and 
the Pyromorphidse [the Zygasnid groups of the 
Zygsenidx], the former of which belongs to Chapman's 
Obtect^e, the latter to his Incomplete ; the second is 
with regard to the Lacosomidx, which are placed by 
Comstock with the Saturnina. Where Dyar differs from 
Chapman it is important to remember that in many 
instances Dyar^s material has been very scanty. 
The following tables speak for themselves as to the 
general agreement between the various authors : — 
I. Classification based on pupal and larval characters. 
Incomplete;, Chapman. 
1. Micropterygidse J Cochliopodidse, Zygsenidse. 
2. a. Hepialidse J Zeuzeridse, Tischeria, Ade- 
lidse, Nepticulidse. 
/3. Tineidse, Psychidse, Sesiidse, Tortricina, 
CossidsBj Exapate, Simsethis [Gastnia], 
7. Litho collet idsB, Gracilariidse. 
8. Pterophoridse. 
II. Classification based on the presence of a jugum or 
frenulum proposed by Comstock, these charac- 
ters being supplemented by characters drawn 
from neuration. Same classification adopted 
by Dyar, whose conclusions are based on a study 
of the setiferous tubercles. 
