xxxiii. '22] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 229 



The synonymy given by Hampson will hold, with the addition 

 of smithi Butl. 



Plate DVI, fig. 4228, Macaria contcmptata Gn. This species 

 must certainly be removed from the synonymy of granitata Gn. 

 The figure represents a species quite different from the usual 

 conception of granitata, but one that is unknown to me in 

 nature. 



Plate DVII, figs. 4237, 4238, Ypsipctes pluviata Gn. An 

 examination of the excellent figures shows that not only are the 

 two sexes not conspecific, but also that neither of them repre- 

 sents the conception of the species as given in my Hydrioincna 

 revision (1917, Barnes & McDunnough, Contributions, IV, 

 (1), 24). Under the circumstances I propose restricting the 

 name to the male type (Fig. 4238), which is apparently a 

 rather worn specimen of what was listed in the revision as 

 frigidata Wlk. ; the pale spot near the anal angle, the general 

 trend of the lines and the dark hind wings all indicate this spe- 

 cies ; an examination of the genitalia should easily verify this 

 reference. With pluviata Gn. taking priority over frigidata 

 Wlk. the name divisaria Wlk. may be used for the pluviata of 

 the revision. The female (Fig. 4237) appears to belong to 

 rcnnnciata Wlk., although somewhat smaller than usual. 



Plate DVII, fig. 4240, Corcnria dcfcnsaria Gn. I do not see 

 how it is possible to consider this figure as correctly repre- 

 senting the type of defensaria. Guenee's description was 

 drawn up from a single male and he notes that the pectinations 

 of the antennae are more robust than in convallaria Gn. ; in 

 Oberthiir's figure the antennae show no signs of pectinations, 

 being thread-like, and the specimen figured looks extremely 

 like a female. Furthermore the remainder of the description 

 does not fit the figure at all well, which, as a matter of fact, 

 represents a specimen of Pcrizoma polygrammata Hist, or one 

 of its close allies. Until further evidence can be produced it 

 would be well to make no change in the present conception of 

 dcfcnsaria; as pointed out by Mr. Swett, it is not a -form of 

 convallaria, as given in the 1917 Check List, but a good spe- 

 cies. 



