Microlepidoptera и Macrolepidoptera

Meshochnits ftopku, but ognevok need to include, IMHO.

Well, if Sesiidae in macro, then Brachodidae in the same place.

Meshochnits ftopku, but you need to turn on the firebox, IMHO.

On this occasion here a completely different opinion.
And in my opinion, the Pyralidae have always been a microbe.
Who should I trust?
It is a pity that the compilers of the above-mentioned catalog did not give what they calculated when calculating the Micro/Macro ratio.

This post was edited by scarabee - 05/25/2012 19: 48

The compilers of the Catalog, and earlier Kuznetsova and Stekolnikov, and all modern specialists in the taxonomy of lepidoptera, consider the division into micro-macro not relevant. Because such a division is purely artificial. In any case, from the "traditional" macro (as, for example, was the case with Koch), it is necessary to remove the saccules (this is a tineoid family related to real moths) and the fire complex (due to its relatively primitive structure, which tends to "traditional" micro). However, the position of some tropical families, which are still classified as fireflies, is now controversial due to molecular studies - it is possible that they represent transition groups from fireflies to macrophages proper. The macro family is traditionally often referred to as primitive families of thinworms, woodworms, glassworms, and mottles due to their average large size and popularity among collectors. If we adhere to these "traditions", then it is necessary to stipulate the evolutionary remoteness of these groups from the macro itself. Sometimes they are considered as an artificial group of "Protoheterocera". But to put, for example, motley birds among real macro images, as sometimes happened in some works of recent years, is nonsense.