26 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. vol. xii, 



what approacliing Lobohunea in its larval characters, though greatly more spinose; but it differs 

 very much in the two separate unfused dorsal tubercles on the eighth abdominal segment. For this 

 and the imaginal characters it may well be regarded as the type of a distinct subfamily, a 

 somewhat degenerate and highly modified branch given off from the Bunaeinse, unless we should 

 decide the group to be of family rank. 



This may tend to solve the problem of the position of Heniocha (and Vsta?) which though 

 with two separate tubercles on the eighth abdominal segment are apparently in other respects 

 larval and imaginal (venation), more nearly allied to the Bunaeinse than to any other group. 



Should we. regard the Bunaeinae as a family then Heniocha might be regarded as the type 

 of a primitive subfamily of it, and the Urotinae as an allied side family. 



CERCOPHANA Felder. 1 



Cercophana Felder, Verhandlung Wien. Zool. Bot. Ges., XII, p. 496, 1862. 



Eudelia Phllippi, Stettin Ent. Zeit., XXV, p. 91, 1864. 



Lonomia Walker (in part), Cat. Lep. Het. Brit. Mus., VII, p. 1765, 1856. 



[True Lonomia is a quite different genus.] 

 Eudelia Maassen and Werner, Beitrage Schmett., IV, V, 1881, 1885. 

 Eudelia Ktrby, Syn. Cat. Lep. Het., I, p. 764, 1892. 

 Cercophana Rothschild, Novitates Zool., II, p. 46, 1895. 



Imago. — o* . Head and eyes much as in Urota, but the hairs of the front or face are very 

 long and spread out sideways so as to partially conceal the eyes, and prevent one from seeing 

 the exact shape of the front. Antennae of male more broadly pectinated than in Urota, with 

 about 40 joints, the pectinations extending to the tip; the joints shorter than long on the basal 

 half, and the longest ones towards the tip are but little longer than thick, those of the base 

 or near the base being half as long as broad. But a single pair of pectinations to a joint, and 

 they are very long and slender, giving a subplumose appearance to the antennas. Palpi unusu- 

 ally long, a little longer than in Urota, directed downward, not easily detected as the hairs 

 clothing them are long, uneven, and somewhat blended with those of the front. Third joint 

 long, depressed. The maxillae must be very short, vestigial, as they are not visible. Thorax 

 moderately stout, shaggy, much as in Urota. Fore tibial epiphysis a large flattened sack-like 

 appendage, as long as the tibia itself. 



Fore wings decidedly falcate, more so than in Urota; costa straight on the basal three- 

 fourths, but towards the apex much arched or curved, much more so than in Urota; outer 

 edge more deeply excavated behind the apex, and the inner angle more rounded than in Urota. 



Hind wings with the costal edge a little more convex than in Urota, the apex more rounded 

 and full; the wing is produced behind into a long broad tail, which is one-third as long as' the 

 whole wing, and at base nearly half as wide as the wing itself; compared with the tail of Urota 

 it is more than twice as long and wide, and the inner angle of the wing is more decided, the 

 tail being bent outward at a decided angle. 



Venation: Vein II, [III 2 in revised nomenclature] wanting as in Urota, vein II t arising 

 remotely from the anterior discal vein, near the middle of the discal cell; otherwise the vena- 

 tion is much as in Urota, though the two discal veins taken together form a straight line, not 

 a slightly curved one as in Urota. In the hind wings the discal cell is much shorter than in 

 6* Urota, and the discal veins are together much longer and thicker, as well as more oblique 

 than in Urota; the tail is supported by vein HI 3 and IV! ; vein IH 2 (independent) is short and 

 situated or originating nearer the middle of the extradiscal space or cell. 



Fore legs rather stout and hairy, the tibial odoriferous sack very large, swollen at the end 

 and nearly as long as the tibia itself. All the legs larger than in Urota, especially the anterior 

 pair. 



Markings: Ground color yellowish; the tads more reddish brown. A large round distinct 

 opake white discal spot on the fore wing, reproduced beneath, though less distinct than above. 

 No traces of a discal spot on the liind wings, either above or beneath. Fore wings crossed by 



i [Sonthonnax (as I am informed by Mr. J. H. Watson) has discussed Eudelia and Cercophana. Truo Eudelia (type E. aristotclise Phil.) has no 

 incipient tails in the female, whereas Cercophana (type Cfrauenfcldi) has the female hind wings with incipient tails.] 



