22 
others. Regarding the Geometrides (which, by the way, ought to be 
called Phalaenides, as in Fabricius, the early French authors and 
Packard) as a superfamily, one may follow Meyrick in calling these 
four divisions families. Lederer did not himself supply them with 
names, but these have been provided by subsequent authors. I believe 
the correct names to be :— 
(1) Hemitheidae or “ Emeralds ” ( Geometridae or Geometrinae of 
authors). 
(2) Acidaliidae or “ Waves ” (Sterrhidae of Meyrick). 
(3) Larentiidae or “Carpets” (Hydrionienidae of Meyrick). 
(4) Phalaenidae or the great unclassed residue, including 
“ Thorns,” “ Heaths,” “ Beauties,” “ Belles,” “ Peacocks,” and what 
not (Boarmiinae of Hampson, Solidosemidae of Meyrick, Ennomidae 
of Hulst). 
Meyrick and Hampson added tv/o other groups to Lederer’s four, 
but I have had to merge the two into one under the name of Oeno- 
cliromidae, and even then I look upon them as roughly the “ place 
where rubbish may he shot ”—an omnium gatherum of presumably 
ancestral forms which do not specialise along the lines of either of 
Lederer’s four groups. Therefore I repeat we have not advanced 
much in our primary groupings since he wrote, and I think, for the 
present, we must be content with this broad basis. Of course, 1 do 
not minimise the value of the work which has been done by Meyrick, 
Hampson, and others, in the matter of logical subdividing and in the 
accurate definition of genera; but, as I shall show you presently, a 
good deal that we regard as Meyrickian—simple because we happen 
to possess no other book containing it—was really “cut and dried ” 
long before most of us were born. 
It would be outside the scope of this paper, and would add even 
more of the “ dry ” element than I have promised myself to inflict 
upon you, if I stayed to define the four (or five) families in any 
scientific way. But before quitting my introductory section, I may 
just point out a few of the more comparatively superficial features 
which accompany the family characters with more or less persistency, 
and help the non-specialist to accept and apply our scheme, though 
naturally tripping him up—as they tripped up Guenee—in individual 
cases. The Hemitheinae (Emeralds) are, of course, noteworthy for 
the remarkable prevalence of green coloration, which is on the whole 
so rare in the Lepidoptera. We have no British Emerald which is 
not green, when in its correct condition (would that lodis lactearia 
v'ere a little more dutiful in this particular !), and we have only one 
emerald-green Geometrid which is not Hemitheid, namely, Cainpaea 
( Metrocampa ) margaritata ; I do not think green-mingled species like 
Cidaria rniatci, Chloroclystis coronata, or other Larentiids could confuse 
even the veriest tyro. On the continent there are one or two grey 
emeralds, and in India and Australia many, but the common shades 
of brown, ochreous, fulvous, and white are here so rare as to be practi¬ 
cally negligeable, while as to light or bright yellows (by no means 
infrequent in the other three families), I do not know of a single 
Hemitheid example in the whole world. The Larentiidae (Carpets) 
are very generally recognisable by their special scheme of markings, 
especially by the dark median band of the forewing, not repeated on 
xx. 
