of the cell, forming a secondary cell; there are, also, two free false veins, often obsolete, one on each side of vein 1, known as 1a and 1b. The structure of the hindwings is the same, except that there are only six veins rising from the cell, or eight altogether. Any two veins may coincide partially, when they appear to rise from a common stalk; or wholly, when their number appears diminished. In the lowest groups of the Tineina the venation is commonly very incomplete, without any distinct cell. The other points of structure to be especially noted are the form of the labial palpi, the absence or development of the maxillary palpi, the antennæ, the scaling of the head (in the Tineina), and some minor details. The legs and abdomen very rarely afford any characters worthy of notice. It must, also, be especially borne in mind that the form of the wings is in general almost valueless for generic distinction and should never be relied on; but exception may be made in the hindwings of some of the Tineina, which from their great diversity often furnish serviceable points of distinction. The measurements in the following descriptions are given in millimetres (for practical purposes, 25 = 1 inch), which have the advantage of being comprehensible without confusion in all countries, and are now very commonly adopted. Little need be said of what has been hitherto done in the investigation of the Micro-Lepidaptera of New Zealand. Doubleday and Zeller have incidentally described a very few, only about a dozen altogether; their descriptions are excellent and all easily recognizable. I am indebted to Prof. Zeller for sending me his original figures of the New Zealand species of Crambus described. by him, to ensure their accurate determination. Felder has figured a small number of species, but as his figures are commonly poor and hard to identify, and his classification wholly conjectural, it would have been better if he had left them alone. Walker, in his British Museum Catalogue, has described a good many; but his work, as I have elsewhere sufficiently pointed out, is useless for scientific purposes. His descriptions are strictly, almost always quite, unidentifiable; but I have adopted his specific names from a comparison of the types, when it appeared that the specimens standing as types are really those intended by the description, and when the types are, also, themselves recognizable, which is by no means always the case. But as genera are not realities but abstractions, I have conceived it to be impossible to adopt his generic titles, unless the characters given really indicate the distinctive points of the genus, which hardly ever happens. Latterly Mr. A. G. Butler, of the British Museum, has turned his attention to these groups, but, I grieve to say, with most unsatisfactory results. For example, as I have pointed out hereafter, he has described three typical species of