the Classification of Lepidoptera. 
355 
I. Obtect^, Chapman. 
1. Of doubtful value^ Goleophoridse, Argyresthid^, 
Syponomeiitidse, (Elachistidse ?). 
2. Pyealoids. — Alucitidse, Epigraphiidse, (Ecoplior- 
idse, Flutellidsey GelecMidse, GrambidsBy Eudor- 
idse, Phycidse, Pyrales. 
3. Macros. — Nodidna, Geometrina, BomhyceSj 
Nolidde, Nyctseolidse. 
II. Specialised Frenat^, Comstock^ Dyar. 
1. Noctuidse (in part)^ Agaristidse, Nydeolidce. and 
Nolidse [= Lithosiidse, in part], Notodontidse, 
Geometridse, Drepanidse. 
2. Noctuidse (in part), Pericopidse, Arctiidse, Euch- 
romiidse [= Zygmnidse Lymantriidsdj 
Lasiocampidsej Sphingidse (?). 
The LitJiosiidse f (in part), Saturnina, Sphingidds, 
together with the various families of Butterflies, Dyar 
classes as the Frenulum Losers of Comstock. 
in. Classification of Obtect^, Chapman, as arranged 
by Hampson. 
1. Pyralidpe, Tliyridiidse, Drepanulidsej Galli- 
dulidse, Lasiocampidse. 
2. Arhelidx, Endromidse, Syntomidse, Arctiidse, 
Lymantriidse, Pterothysanidse, Hypsidse, 
Agaristidse, Noctuidse. 
3. Gymatophoridse, Sphingidse, Notodontidse, Di- 
optidse, Geometridse, Epiplemidx, TJraniidse, 
Epicopeidse, Bomhycidse, Eupterotidse, Cerato- 
campidse, Brahmaeidse, Saturniidse, Bliop- 
alocera. 
If we assume, and I think we may safely do so, that 
these groupings are not intended to be linear, we cannot 
help being struck with the fact that, to a considerable 
extent, even in detail, notwithstanding the comparatively 
small amount of material actually studied, the systems 
largely confirm each other. 
It will be seen on reference to Mr. Dyar^s paper that 
he has worked out the relationships of the larvse of the 
* This part of the old division of Zygcenidce is referred to the 
ArctiidcE by Chapman, 
t There is no trace in Dyar's paper to show which part is here 
meant. 
