352 Mr. J. W. Tutt on recent papers on 
place. Thus, in comparing Sections 1 and 2, Microptery- 
gidse (Section 1) would fall below Hepialidde (Section 2), 
but Zygaenidse (Section 1) would , come above Graci- 
larUdsejSbnd probably level with Fterophoridse (Section 2), 
if the amount of specialisation of the groups be thoroughly- 
weighed. 
A comparison of the above tables shows how nearly 
Dr. Chapman's arrangement has been upheld by the 
other systems. It may be well now to point out the 
main differences observable, and, if possible, their causes. 
The greatest difference is, of course, at once noticed to 
be in connection with the Tineina. Mr. Dyar^s material 
here has been practically nil [vide Classif. of Lepidop. 
Larvse, pp. 208, 209), whilst Mr. Hampson apparently 
includes all the groups in his Tineidse, and gives no 
clue as to what he thinks of them. Both appear to 
come to conclusions practically at one with Dr. Chap- 
man, so far as relates to the families hitherto lumped 
together as Bombyces, and, no doubt, when they have 
examined sufficient material in the Tineina, they will 
confirm his conclusions there. 
It would be well here to inquire what Mr. Hampson 
means by Tineidse. Dr. Chapman restricts it very pro- 
perly to the genus Tinea and its closest allies, and 
excludes absolutely all the other famihes formerly 
admitted under the name of Tineina, which families, 
indeed, he shows to have a wonderful range of relation- 
ships. From the fact that one fails, in the remaiader 
of Mr. Hampson's paper, to find any subsidiary groups, 
one is forced to the conclusion that he has included in 
the term the whole heterogeneous group, which I, for 
one, thought we had done with for ever; and as the 
Toetrices are also left out of Mr. Hampson's arrange- 
ment, one wonders also whether they are, in addition, to 
be considered as included therein. Now, Dr. Chapman 
divides the Tineina up into numbers of well-defined 
families, all having great and vastly different classifi- 
catory values (vide *^Ent. Hecord,^'' etc., vol. iv., pp. 
73, 74), restricting the term Tineidse to a very small 
section, as just defined. He subtracts, for example, the 
Nepticulidse, the Adelidse, and Tischeria, Exapate, the 
Lithocolletidse, and Gracilariidds, all of which fall in the 
large division Incomplete. Then he further takes away 
the Elachistidse, Coleophoridsej Argyrestkidse, JSypono- 
