THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 245 



Small species ; primaries rounded Ochrosoma. 



Vein 8 united to 7 nearly to tip of cell. 



Female vein 10 of primaries on stalk with 7-9 ; 

 frenulum distinct Sciaihos. 



Female vein 10 from cell; male short stalked; fren- 

 ulum rudimentary Megalopyge. 



As indicated above, I find that Megalopyge orsilochus is not 

 congeneric with the other species, and Walker's name may be restored 

 for it. The moth is less modified than Megalopyge ; the male frenulum 

 is distinct, and on primaries the costal loop is very well-developed. In 

 Megalopyge proper it has disappeared. While Megalopyge has one or 

 two branches from vein i on primaries, Podalia has three such, having 

 developed supplementary veins for the strengthening of the internal 

 margin. 



Prof Comstock has interpreted the single branch of vein i, found in 

 our species of Megalopyge, to be the remains of the first internal vein ;* 

 but in M. la?iata, male, this vein is forked, and it seems scarcely clear 

 whether the whole structure may not be a neomorph. It is rather 

 characteristic of the Megalopygidai to have this structure, though in the 

 female of Sciathos it is a mere rudiment and it is absent in Eupoeya.| 



Family Eucleid^. 



The genus Euryda H.-S. contains in Kirby's catalogue three species. 

 One of these, leucostigma, Sepp, is referred, in the appendix, to the 

 Arctiidse, where it evidently belongs ; another, lohor, Moore, belongs to 

 the genus Belippa, according to Hampson ; and we have left only the 

 type hipparchia, Cramer. I have both sexes of this species before me. 

 It belongs to the genus Phobetron. Stoll figures the larva, and it is not 

 to be distinguished from our P. pithecium. 



I think it will be preferable to refer Limacodes Beutenmuelleri, Hy. 

 Edw., also to this genus. In placing it in Semyra I followed Kirby, and 

 I have not seen the type of Semyra in nature. Walker's description of 

 the type (vS. coarctata) implies a species allied to Euclea and Sibine, 

 and can scarcely be near Phobetron, from which Beutenmuelleri does 

 not differ essentially. 



*Evolution and Taxonomy, Wilder (Quarter Century Book, p. 81. 



tUntil the larva of Eupoeya is known, we can not be sure that it does not belong 

 to the Eucleidse. 



