5 
naturally, and his sub-divisions are generally accepted. Quite recently 
Mr. Meyrick has attempted a new subdivision based on the neuration. 
One or two of his alterations are satisfactory, especially his use of 
Trichoptilus , Wlsm., and his new genus Marasmarcha. His alterations 
in nomenclature are absolutely useless and unnecessary, as there was no 
question in any one’s mind about the use of the existent names, and his 
whole system, based as it is on one variant feature of the imago, viz., 
neuration, is as valueless for stable characters for classification, as was 
the original classification of all moths by Linnaeus by the antennae. No 
one character is of use alone, and no characters based on the imagines 
alone, without a most intimate knowledge of the earlier stages, will ever 
give us a stable and natural system of classification. The Wallengren 
arrangement, with but slight modifications, will be used in the table that 
follows these preliminary notes. The structure of the wings of the 
species is variable. Those of Chrysocorys and Agdistis are uncleft. The 
wings of Alucita hexadactyla are each divided into six plumules, whilst 
in all the other genera, the fore-wings are divided into two lobes, the 
hind wings into three plumules. The rarest species are Oxyptilus 
hieracii and Pselnophorus brachydactylus , their right to be considered as 
British species having frequently been questioned. Cncemidophorus 
rhododactylus has been almost exterminated by thoughtless collectors in 
its old haunts at Chattenden, whilst Platyptilia isodactylus has recently 
been bred in some numbers by Mr. Eustace Bankes, after having been 
very rare for many years. 'The two broods of P. gonodactyla feed differ¬ 
ently, the spring brood in the flower stalks of Tussilago farfara , and 
the second on the leaves of the same plant. The close brotherhood of 
Amblyptilia acanthodactyla and punctidactyla is very remarkable, espe¬ 
cially their similar habits, etc. Oxyptilus distans and O. Icetus are now 
recognised as seasonably dimorphic forms of the same species; O. 
pilosellce , after many years’ absence, has recently been taken near Dover 
by Mr. Sydney Webb. It is also very strange that our O. heterodactyla 
(teucrii) is not known on the Continent. Do the Continental lepidop- 
terists (at any rate in part) call this species hieracii ? The capture of 
Trichoptilus paludum in Yorkshire in 1891 is rather remarkable. Can 
this possibly be the allied siceliota ? A species of Platyptilia has recently 
occurred on ragwort in Aberdeenshire and in Cumberland, closely 
allied to P. pallidactyla. Will it turn out to be this latter species, or is 
it something new to science ? A small form of P. monodactyla , as was 
supposed by Mr. C. G. Barrett, was taken by me on Wicken Fen this 
year in July. In superficial appearance it is more like Leioptilus, and 
its specific identity is open to question. These and many other puzzles 
have yet to be worked out by those who are attracted to study this 
interesting family. The larvae of the “ plumes ” are generally hairy, and 
their methods of feeding very diverse, sometimes boring into the stems 
of plants, sometimes enclosing themselves in flowers, and sometimes 
feeding on leaves. The pupae are also generally hairy, and attached by 
their anal segments, or otherwise the larvae spin a slight web in which to 
pupate. Many of the imagines hybernate, and of other of our species it is 
uncertain in what stage they pass the winter. The following table may 
be of service to those who have not previously worked at the “ plumes.” 
It gives some of the most important particulars relating to the insects 
in their various stages. The Roman numerals relate to the months of 
the year:— 
