88 IIVDKACARIMA 



2. Eylais degenerata K(3cii. 



Eviais degenerata Koenike, 1897, pp. 292-93 



Koenike, 1898, pp. 307-09 

 liiiliiis ■i'liriabilis Sig Thor, 1902, pp. 450-51 



" " var. iiiagtm Sig Thor, 1902, p. 451 



" intermedia Sig Thor, 1902, p. 451 

 " degenerata Nordcnskiohl, 1905, p. 2 

 " pscudoriinosa Piersig. 1906, pp. 380-82 

 " degenerata Daday, 1910, p. 239 

 Eylais angulata Viets, 1911, pp. 155-56 

 " " galcata Viets, 1911, pp. 156-57 

 " angulata Yiets, 1911a, pp. 351-54 

 " degenerata galeata Viets, 1911 a, pp. 354-57 

 " consors Szalay, 1912, pp. 70-73, 81 

 " eregliensis Szalay, 1912, pp. 73-77, 81-82 

 " stagnalis Szalay (non lialbcrt!), 1912, pp. 77-80, 82 

 " degenerata Viets, 1914, p. 83 

 " taurica Viets, 1914 a, p. 560 

 " degenerata hispanica Viets, 1918, pp. 19-23 



microstoma Viets, 1921, pp. 419-20 



Walter, 1922, pp. 64-65 



galeata Walter, 1922, pp. 65-66 



microstoma Walter, 1922, p. 66 



galeata Szalay, 1926, pp. 21 1-12, 215 

 " consors Szalay, 1926, pp. 212-13, 216 

 " taurica Szalay, 1926, pp. 213-14, 216 

 " degenerata sumatrensis W&is, 1926, pp. 101-02 



asiatica Viets, 1926 a, pp. Z7Q-72 

 " asiatica Marshall, 1928, pp. 602-03 

 " galeata Marshall, 1928, p. 603 

 " degenerata Viets, 1930, pp. 208-09 



angidata Viets, 1930, pp. 209-10 



This species was originally described from Madagascar, Egypt and East Africa. Later 

 Nordenskiold and Walter reported it from Soudan, Viets from the Cape Province. More 

 or less aberrant forms were described by Viets from East Africa (angidata, galeata, micro- 

 stoma), Spain (hispanica), Sumatra (siimatrensis) , and India (asiatica). Some of these 

 later have been met with in other places (angidata in Spain by Viets, galeata in llungar}' 

 by Szalay and in China by Marshall, and asiatica in China by Marshall).^ The forms angidata 

 and galeata at first were looked upon as distinct species, but after some time degraded by the 

 author himself to the rank of varieties. 



Eylais degenerata is a very variable and widely distributed form that has often been 

 misinterpreted. There seems to be no doubt that Daday and Viets are quite right in identify- 

 ing Thor's E. variabilis, variabilis magna and z-ariabUis intermedia from the Cape Province 

 with the species of Koenike. The figure of the maxillary organ seems to me undisputably to 

 confirm this opinion. For the same reason Piersig's E. psciidorimosa from Sumatra prob- 

 ably also belongs to degenerata, as pointed out already by Viets. Another form, consors, 

 which Szalay describes from Asia Minor and which he afterwards refound in Hungary, is 



' It seems somewhat uncertain whether the specimens mentioned by Marshall from China have been rightly 

 identified. 



