Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 52. (Budapest 1960)

Gozmány, L.: Records on Microlepidoptera

justified in his above treatment of the respective genera, or, if not, to which of these groups the new species rightfully belongs. After an examination of the type species of Zelleria Stt., Hofmannia Wck., and Paradoxus Stt., I arrived at the following results. Concerning the structure of the head, the hairs in Paradoxus Stt. are „partéd" in two portions, they are very high and dense ; the labial palpi appear rather arched (due to the single scales and hairs separating themselves from the main tuft dorsally), and the third joint is very short: and hidden in the hairs (fig. 1 : B, C). The hairs of Zelleria Stt. and Hofmannia Wck. are shorter, though still loose, yet set more compact ; the labial palpi straight er (on account of the much shorter and smoother, adherent scales and hairs), with the second and third joints clearlv visible. The palpi of Zelleria Stt. are longer than those of Hofmannia Wck. (fig. 1 : D, E). With regard to the venation of the wings, the three groups mentioned also differ from each other. In the fore wings of Zelleria Stt., m

3 and cu- are wholly coincident, while they are well separated in Hofmannia Wck., with m

2+3 frequently on a short stalk. In Paradoxus Stt., i] is longer on the fore wings than in any of the related genera, m

2+3 are clearly stalked, and this stalk is conascent with mi, a special feature of this genus. The structure of the hind wings is generally the same in all three genera, with the important difference, however, that there is a large hyaline area basally between the cubital and anal veins in Paradoxus Stt. (fig. 2 : A). I had no occasion to examine the preponderantly exotic genera Lycophantis Meyr. and Xyrosaris Meyr., but in the description of the latter M e y r i c k points out that the third joint of the labial palpi is even longer than the second, and that its antenna is longer than the length of the fore wing. These are very special features indeed, and they justly allow the erection of a new genus. Later, however, the species relegated to Xyrosaris Meyr., — and showing some characters differring from those of the type species (dryopa Mevr.) — resulted in the genus becoming a heterogenous composition. So Meyrick concluded (1. c.) that it cannot be maintained any more, and synonymized it with Zelleria Stt. The present trend in systematica, justified by our better understanding now of what constitutes a genus, is that no heterogenous group should be maintained. Genera like Gelechia Z., Tinea Z., etc. have all been split up into several well definable taxa, — satisfactorily homogenous —, on the basis of comprising only species which agree in well-characterizable features of generic value, such as head, wing and genitalic structure, foodplants (or the means of feeding), habits, habitats, etc., — even if this procedure should result in creating as many genera as there were species originally included in the old ,,genus". As was shown above, we do dispose of such characters concerning Zelleria Stt., Hofmannia Wck. and Paradoxus Stt. Should one detailedly examine the species relegated up to now to Xyrosaris Meyr., (Lycophantis Meyr. includes hitherto the type species only), I am sure that one could find several features common to some of them and again various characteristics common to others, yet with all of them together differring among each other, thus allowing the creation of homogenous genera. The fact that ,,the type of the genus (Zelleria Stt.), hepariella Stt., is really an exceptional form with palpi unusually slender", and that those of other taxa show ,,all degrees of development of the rough scaling of the terminal joint" (M e y r i c k, 1. c), is no cause yet why they should all be united, — without having examined and grouped all other relevant features to see whether the species really consti-