90 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETEN 25 7 



of the species. The second male specimen cited in the original 

 description is from New Ireland; it may prove to be a distinct species. 

 One of the present specimens is labelled "paratype", but again, 

 since only a single specimen has been sent to Meyrick for identifi- 

 cation, no syn types from Luzon were cited by him; so, formally, 

 the present material is only topotypic. 



The male genitalia may be described thus. Tegumen moderate, 

 sub trapezoidal, its dorsal portion slightly broader than its legs. 

 Uncus indicated by a small quadrate prominence or fold. Gnathos 

 rather weU developed for the genus, indicated by short, pointed 

 lateral processes each ending in a dark point to which are attached 

 a strongly folded and well-defined tuba analis, as well as a transverse 

 sclerite, probably the gnathos hook proper, with a triangular excision 

 in front. Vinculum strong, angularly bent. Valva moderate, 

 straight, slightly clavate; its top vesicular, with a moderate cavity 

 internally, containing a single large spine and a marginal rounded 

 subtriangular ridge beyond it. Caulis very strong. Aedeagus 

 narrow, dilated at base (slide 5012). 



Cryptophlebia (Cryptophlehia) ombrodelta (Lower, 1898) 



Figures 559-560 



Arothrophora (?) ombrodelta Lower, 1898, Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, 

 vol. 23, p. 48 (cf, Victoria). — Diakonoff, 1953, Verb. Ned. Akad. Wet., Nat., 

 ser. 2, vol. 49, no. 3, p. 157. 



Cryptophlebia ombrodelta. — Bradley, 1953, Bull. Ent. Res., vol. 43, p. 682, fig. 1 

 (genit. cT), pi. 24, fig. 1(9), pi. 25, figs. 1, la (genit. ?) (sj'n.: carpophaga 

 Walsingham). — N.B. Tindale, 1955, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Australia, vol. 

 78, p. 97, fig. (lectotype 9 selected). — Diakonoff, 1957, Tijdschr. Ent., vol. 

 100, p. 139, figs. 11-15, 20, 22. 



Cryptophlebia carpophaga Walsingham, 1899, Indian Mus. Notes, vol. 4, p. 106 

 (cf ? , India).— Barlow, 1903, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 121, pi. 15, figs. 2, 2a, 2b.— 

 Maxwell-Lefroy, 1909, Indian Insect Life, p. 531, pi. 28, figs. 11, 12.— 

 Diakonoff, 1953, Verb. Ned. Akad. Wet., Nat., ser. 2, vol. 49, no. 3, p. 157. 



Argyroploce illepida Meyrick, 1910 (not Butler, 1882), Proc. Linn. Soc. New 

 South Wales, vol. 36, p. 265 (syn. ombrodelta Lower and carpophaga Walsing- 

 ham); 1911, Indian Mus. Notes, vol. 5, p. 218.— Fletcher, 1914, South 

 Indian Insects . . . , p. 449, fig. 327; 1917, Rep. Proc. 2nd Ent. Meeting 

 Pusa, pp. 230, 234, 257; 1920, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Ent. ser., vol. 4, 

 p. 56 (life hist., food plant); 1932, Imp. Counc. Agric. Res., Sci. Mon., no. 2, 

 p. 29, pi. 19 (stages 9 ).— R. Ayyar, 1921, Rep. 4th Ent. Meeting Pusa, p. 

 364 (parasite, Euagathis cryptophlebiae Viereck). — Van der Goot, 1940, 

 Landbouw, vol. 16, pp. 507, 514, figs. 1-7 (also as Meded. Algemeen Proefst. 

 Batavia no. 46 = Med. Inst. Plantenziekten no. 99), pp. 1-43 (life hist., food- 

 plant, parasite, Java). — Clarke, 1951, Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 

 41, p. 299, figs. 5, 6, 13. 



Distribution: South India, Ceylon, Formosa, Java, Borneo, Siam, 

 Philippine Is., Guam, Dampicr Is., Queensland, New South Wales, 

 Victoria, Northern Territory of Australia. 



