458 PEiOCEElMNGS OF THE ISTATIONAL MTJSETJM vol. 94 



IDIOEMBIA ARGENTINA (Navas) 



Emhia {Riiaijadoclur) argetitina Navas, 1918, p. 104, fig. 4.* 



EmUa argentina Navas, 1919, p. 25; 1923a, p. 197**; 1924a, p. 10***; 1930, p. 72 



(records) ; 1933, p. 97.**** 

 Pararliayadochir argentina (Navils) Davis, 1940a, p. 186, figs. 67-75 (misidentifi- 



cations). 



Holotype ?. — Male, Navas collection. 



Type data. — Santa Fe, Argentina, January 6, 1916 (P. Miihn, S. J.) • 



Additional records. — Piinta Lara, near La Plata, Argentina, October 

 5, 1914 (La Plata Mus.)*; Prov. de Buenos Aires, October 13, 1^15 

 (C. Bruch) (La Plata Mus.)* ; Cliaco de Santa Fe, Las Garzas, Bords 

 du Rio Las Garzas, 25 km. west of Ocampo, Argentina, 1903 (E. R. 

 Wagner) (Paris Mus.)***; Gran Chaco, Bords du Rio Tapenaga, 

 Colonie Florencia, Argentina, 1930 (E.R.Wagner) (Paris Mus.)***; 

 Alta Gracia, Cordoba, Argentina, December 25, 1921 and February 3, 

 1922, at light (Bruch)**; Buenos xVires, Argentina, March 13, 

 1930.**** 



Navas had specimens from three Argentina localities before him at 

 the time of the original description of this species. (See above rec- 

 ords.) Those from Punta Lara and Buenos Aires were apparently 

 returned to the La Plata Museum; the other, from Santa Fe, was a 

 part of the Navas collection. Although Davis {I. c.) has arbitrarily 

 regarded the specimen from Punta Lara as the holotype, this does 

 not appear to be the case. Dr. Biraben, of the La Plata Museum, has 

 informed me, in a letter, that no specimen labeled as the type of 

 argentina is deposited there: furthermore, it is evident that Navas's 

 figures (fig. 4), with which his description agrees, were made from a 

 specim.en in his own collection (see "Col. m.", in the caption). No 

 doubt this was the Santa Fe specimen. The writer thus feels it safe 

 to conclude that the Santa Fe specimen should be regarded as the 

 holotype. 



Davis {I. c.) studied two males in the Paris Museum from Chaco de 

 Santa Fe, Argentina, identified as argentina by Navas (1921:a), and 

 on the basis of these specimens he assigned the species to the genus 

 Pararhagadochir. However, a careful examination of Navas's origi- 

 nal description and figures indicates that these specimens were incor- 

 rectly identified by Navtis and that argentina is in reality a member of 

 the genus Idioenibia and is, perhaps, closely related to the /. producta 

 described above. The reasons for the present generic assignment are 

 as follows : 



1. Navas's figures and description of the wings of argentin-a cor- 

 respond very well to /. producta and not to any known species of 

 Pararhagadochir. His figures of the wings of trachelia and hirabeni, 



