64 
MEMOIRS or THE KxVTIONAL ACADEjMY OF SGIEYCES. 
and also those Avith functional or vestigial maxillary palpij such as TineidiCj Gracilariidie, 
Elachistidie, etc. 
It is evident that the classification of the Tineina -will have to be entirely recast. Instead of 
placing the Tineidic, with their broad wings and generalized venation, at the head of the Tineina, 
as done in onr catalogues and general w’orks, they should go to the base of the series, not far 
from the Micropterygida*. On looking over the A^euation of the Tineida? repre- 
sented on ISpuler’s PI. XXVI, it is evident that the very narrow-winged genera 
such as Coleopliora, Ornix, Lithocolletis, Xepticula, Gelechia, Ceiniostoina, and 
CEcophora, are highly modified recent forms Avhen compared with Tinea and 
Blabophanes, as well as the Adelidie (Adela, fig. 7), Xematois (fig. 8), and Ohoreu. 
tidie (Simfethis, fig. 9, larva, and Choreutis), and justify Chapman in associating 
them with the Pyraloids in his group of Fuine obtectcc. 
The pupa of Gracilaria (fig. 10) and of Biiccnlatrix (tig. 11) shows the eye- 
collar, the paraclypeal tubercles, as Avell as the labial palpi. On the other 
hand, the j)upa of the pyraloid genus Oryptolechia (figs. 22,2.3, C. qnercicella, G. 
scMaginiella) shoAvs no traces of the maxillary palpi (eye-collar). 
Familif Frodoxidw , — Having already discussed the chief characteristics of 
the Palieolepidoptera, represented by the family Microiderygidai, Ave may next 
call attention to the most primitiA’c of the Xcolei^idoptcra. These wc belie\^e 
to be the A^ery remarkable genera Tegeticula (Pronuba) and Prodoxus, repre- 
senting the family Prodoxida?. The structure of the imagines and their larAml 
and pupal forms have been described at length and figured by Dr. G. Y. Riley, ^ 
Avho has described the egg as being A^ery long, cylindrical, soft, and flexible; 
the boring larA^m as being either A\ithout abdominal legs, but with thoracic 
ones (Tegeticula), or entirely apodons (Pronuba). Dr. Riley giAms a careful and 
detailed account of the male and female pupa of Tegeticula (Pronuba), but does 
not mention the “eye-collar’’ or case of the end of the maxillary palpi (figs. 12, 13, ?na'. j>.), Avhich 
is very large, especially in Tegeticula, much more so than in the rest of the Tineina or in any 
of the other Xeolepidoptera. It is thus in a degree intermediate between that of the !Neo- and 
Paleolepidoptera. The maxilhe {mx,) are well developed, but there are no traces, so far as I can 
see, of the “maxillary tentacles” so greatly developed, 
3y, in the imago; but the specimens kindly 
lent me by Dr, Riley for examination are 
the cast shells, and further examination 
and search for them should be made on 
living or alcoholic specimens. The labial 
palpi (mx.jj.) and the paraclypeal pieces, 
as well as the eye-suture separating the 
“glazed eye” from the rest of the eye, are 
Avell developed. xVbdominal segments 2-9 
are free and armed Avith the enormous 
dorsal spines well described and figured 
by Riley. Figs. II and 15 represent the 
cast pupa skin of P^^odoxus decipiens 
Riley. 
The venation is almost exactly as in 
Tineidfe, but the structure of the maxillae, 
as described and figured by Riley, presents an extraordinary feature, in which this family, and 
especially the luesent genus, difters from all the other insects. I refer to the remarkable 
“maxillary’ tentacles.” Riley thus describes them: 
The male possesses no very marked characters, hut the female is most anomalous; first, in possessing a pair of 
prehensile, spinous, maxillary tentacles (fig. 16), found, so far as we now Icnow, in no other genus of Lepidojitera. 
7ny.p 
Fig. 10.— Head of 
pupa of Gracilaria; cl, 
clypousj Z, labrum. 
1 Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sc., xxix, 1880. 
