Article beginning on page 71.
Psyche 4:71-74, 1883.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/4/4-071.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

JUI~-~ugust 18Sj.] PSYCHE. 71
There is little need of comment upon
slide.
The process consists in putting
Fiscl~ei's classification of scales of the scales in a drop of some quickly coleoptera into conchiform scales evaporating substance - chloroforin is (Muschelschuppen) , metallic scales best for most purposes -on the slides. (Metalblatt~chup~e~l), granulated scales The scales will form in a kind of (Granulationsschuppen) , piliferom and
whirlpool, nearly all the scales finally shaggy scales (Haar- und Zottenschup- settling down, as the liquid evaporates, pen) and fibrous scales (Faserschup-
in one place on the slide. Rapping the
pen). Leydig, as quoted above, slide gently sometimes aids in the collect- destroyed the value of the division of ing together of the scales, and the tip granulated scales, and I have found that of the scalpel used to scrape the scales the division of fibrous scales owes its from the insect can be washed in the origin to what Fischer would call "gran- drop of chloriform, thus saving every illations," that is to air-spaces, only, scale when they are from a rare speci- that, in this case the grandations are men from which one desires to remove arranged longitudinally in stripes. I only a few scales. By inclining the can present no new classification of slide gently, the mass of floating scales scales, if such a classification is possible, can be made to settle on the exact without studying more forms. centre of the glass. One part of Before concluding this paper I will
Canada
balsam added to several hun-
add a note on the mode which I have dred parts of chloroform will cause the , employed to gather scales, and some
scales to stick firmly to the slide.
other minute objects of like nature, (To he continued, by <t notice of some liiera- together upon one place on a microscope see* sfacepre$flriWthe original$a$er+) THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TINEIDAE.
BY VACTOR TOUSEY CHAMBERS. COVINGTON, KY. My attention has just been called to
conveys the impression that I have stated an article by Mr. Grote in Papi/io, that Anaphora ought to be placed else- vol. 3.
011 page 43 he writes " I do
where than in iineidae, and because the
not wish to enter into an argument as
second quotation gives me an opporturi-
to the best classification of the tineidae, ity to write more fully than I have but disagreeing with Mr. Chambers, I do elsewhere done as to the classification not think any one would take Anaphora of the tiiteidae ; an opportunity that I for any thing but a tineid ; " and on page desire because two such distinguished 38 he writes, "So far as I have studied entoinoiogists as Lord Walsingham them we appear to be able to classify our and Mr. Grote have, very courteously moths under s$hingidue-tzkeidae", of course, taken me to task for the. &e., &c., naniing the families usually expression of opinions as to the adopted. I refer to this subject because classification of the tineidae which the first of these above- quoted passages are by them considered more or




================================================================================

PSYCHE.
heterodox.
I am not aware that I have
anywhere expressed such an opinion as
is by implication at least attributed to me in the above quotation as to the
position of Anaphora. Mr. Grote
was, I suppose, thinking of some re-
marks by me in an article in a previous
number of Pu$ilio, which was written
in response to one by Lord Walsing-
ham. His Lordship had stated that
"It is surely easier at first sight to sepa- rate these [tineid] genera from those of other families" kc., than to locate or
separate certain other genera of those
other families, thus seeming to convey
the idea that there is a something', je Me sai's gmi, about the tineid genera
referred to by him which made it
comparatively easy, "at first sight," to refer them to the tineidae; and if Mr.
Grote will look at my paper in Pai>il&
a little more carefully he will see that my remarks upon Anqhora hinge
upon the words of Lord Walsingharn,
'"nt first sight ; " and that while I do not deny the tineid affinities of Anaphora I was unable to see with Lord Walsing-
ham this indefinable and to me imp-
preciable something which makes the
location of the tineid genera among the
tineidae easy "at first sight" as COITI- pared with the genera of other families
mentioned by his Lordship; and I
instanced Anaphora as a tinkid genus
which at first sight-by one who was
unacquainted with it - was more likely
to be referred to the noctuidae than to
the tine&. And I am yet of that
opinion. There is something in the
size, form, and color, especially of the darker species of Anaphora, that "at
first sight" is much more suggestive of
the noctuidae than it is even of the true tineidae, to which examination shows
that it belongs : and if there is anything about Ana$ftora that "at first sight," or bsecond sight" either, shows it to belong to any other section of tineidae than
that which contains Tinea proper,
T don't know what it is. If there is
anything under the sun about Anaphora,
or for that matter about a true Tinea.
say T. tapet^eUa, which at first sight,
or upon the most careful examination,
suggests that it is more closely allied to Gracilaria, Lithocoltetis, Gelechia ,
Cemiosroma, or any of the host of
smaller theidae than it is to Noctrda, I have failed to detect it, and if no
resource was left to me but to either
place Anaphora in noct~tidae, or in the
same family with PhyZ/ucxistis or any
of the genera of smaller moths known
to me, then I should unhesitatingly
refer Ana$hora to the noctuidae.
Ana/hora no doubt belongs to the
tineidae, restricted to the allies of Tinea by Mr. Staiiiton in his Insecta Britan-
nica, v. 3, but neither Lord Waising-
ham nor Mr. Grote uses the name
tineidae in this sense in the papers
above quoted. Both, in the papers in
Paptlio above mentioned, have discard-
ed even Stephens' distinction between
tineidae and kyponomeufidae, and
include under the name tineidue all or
nearly all of the genera included by
Stephens in both of his families, with
some others not mentioned by him,
thus placing Cemiostoma, Nef iicuh,
Tischeria., Phyllocnistis, Aspidisca,
Heliodines, LHhucoZletis, Gradaria,




================================================================================

PSYCHE.
alue in the same family, the tineidae! . arrangement is that it does not recognise rd Walsingham does indeed, in families enough, and my objection to Iw, refer to certain sub-groups of Mr. Staintoii's classification is that it ders them minor groups and Stainton's timidue (restricted) seems on the tine& as a homoge- to be a good and natural family of equal should
part of a third, form together a single, uc-
from all of the known tineidae, and to
ra heterocera at once : it would form, or of degradation from some distinguished entomologists as lines
em size and consistency




================================================================================

tinct and well limited as the true tine& due or even more so. The nepficulidae
seem to me to form another natural
family. The immense host comprised
in Mr. Stainton's families kyponomeu-
tidae, gelechidae, gfyphipterygidae,
coleojhorida~ form at least one other
family, if not more than one, though
I incline to include the last three, at a11 events, in a single family. A large
number of genera of his family ela-
cdisftdae may probably be included in
the geleckidae, but there will still re- main many of the others which are
difficult of location, unless each of them shall itself be held of family rather than of generic value. Thus Exheria
seems to me especially to stand alone,
Mr. Stainton places it in elachistidae ; Dr. Clemens thought it belonged in
lithucolletidae, an opinion in which I
also was at one time inclined to concur, when looking only to some of the char-
acters of the imago : but those of both
larva and imago separate it toto coelo
from lithocolletidae, and those of the
larva separate it from all other lepido- ptera : its labruui and maxillae are as
much like those of some coleoptera.
Cemiostoma also is suigeneris or rath-
er sitifamiliae. Mr. Grote rightly at-
taches much importance to the neura-
tion of the wings, but, judged by this
test, Cedostoma seems to me to stand,
if not alone, at least in no close rela- tionship to any other genus. Our
American species, C. aliella, even dif-
fers from the European C. laburnella, as figured by Mr. Stainton in Insecta Brit- annica, v. 3, in thatalbella has the med- ian vein of the primaries furcate at the base, as well as in other minor respects. The pupae are in some respects singular, and in the larva the structure of the tro- phi is as distinct and unique as it is in Tischeria. Mr. Stainton places Cemio-
stoma in his family lyoneiidae, along
with Bucculatrix (the affinities of
which are rather with Nepticula) and
.Phyllocnistis (which I think belongs
with Coriscium and Lithocolletis). In
the same family he places Lyonetia and
Opostega7 the affinities of which are
yet doubtful, the latter probably belong- ing near PftyZZocnistis'. It seems to me that this family (tyunetidae} cannot
stand ; and there still remain, especially among the lower genera of elackistidae,
many forms as to the proper location
of which I am not able to form an
opinion. But with what sort of con-
sistency and upon what scientific prin-
ciples all' of these multitudes of such
diverse structure, metamorphosis, life-
history, habitat, form and ornamenta-
tion, cnn be thrown into a single group, the equivalent of a single family of the higher heterocera, I cannot compre-
hend ; but it seems to me - with the
greatest deference for such authorities
as Lord Walsingham andMr. Grote-
that in all of the particulars just elm- merated, the insects associated by them
under the common family name timi-
dae. present family characters in variety as great as or even greater than ail
other heterocera combined.
Like Mr. Grote I do not desire any
controversy on this subject, and have
written above all that I 'desire to say or shall say upon it, and here take my fare- well of it, hoping that nothing I have
written will be considered to be in tile least degree wanting in respect to either of the distinguished gentlemen above-
named.




================================================================================