354 
Mr. J. W. Tutt on recent papers on 
comprised in what have been proved to be several impor- 
tant families, must occupy a vast amount of time. 
However, it is absolutely necessary that this should be 
done, because by bringing all the small Lepidoptera 
(TiNEiNA, Tortrices) into one group, Tineidse, as has been 
done by Mr. Hampson, the difficulty of their classifi- 
cation is very effectually, but unsatisfactorily, burked. 
Not, of course, that I think for a moment that Messrs. 
Hampson and Dyar foresaw this, for had they done 
so I feel satisfied that they would not have shirked 
the difficulty; still it wants facing, and the various 
groups, it appears to me, should be given their proper 
values in the tables drawn up by their respective 
authors. 
Of the famiKes that make up the division Obtect^, 
Chapman (= the Specialised Frenat^e of Comstock), it 
is difficult to make a comparison. I)r. Chapman does not 
separate the families still left in Bombtces, nor does he 
indicate the difference in value of the several families so 
far as relates to their line of evolution. The failure, 
already referred to, of Mr. Dyar and Mr. Hampson to sub- 
divide the TiNEiNA into their component parts, gives no 
chance of obtaining their equivalent to Dr. Chapman's 
OBTECTiE Section 3, including the Hyponomeutidse, Argy- 
resthidse, Goleophoridse, and ? Elachistidx. Mr. Dyar, 
too, by placing the Pyralidse in the Incomplete with- 
draws this family from comparison, but Mr. Hampson 
agrees with Dr. Chapman in placing the Pyralidse at the 
bottom of this group. Having reached this point Dr. 
Chapman is satisfied with naming the Sphinges, Bom- 
hyces (as restricted), Nolidse, Nyctseolidse, Noctuina, and 
Geometrse, collectively as the highest group, i.e., those 
which have undergone the most specialisation. Both 
Mr. Hampson and Mr. Dyar agree with this, although 
their details are not identical. Mr. Dyar places the 
Geometridse much lower than does Mr. Hampson, but, for 
all that, the important fact remains that all the authors' 
conclusions prove them to be in agreement that Dr. Chap- 
man's Macros do represent the most highly developed 
families. 
[t may be interesting here to compare the details 
of classification suggested by these authors for the 
higher developed Heterocera. 
