86 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



rounded and is a little costad to vein 5. (4) Proximity of veins 6 and 

 8, joined in orifjin in titantn. This is not the case. (5) Cell broader 

 in iiianto. My figures show cell narrower in manto. 



Hindwinfi;. (6) Cell much less sharply angled than in maiito. I 

 can see no dili'erence. (7) 6 and 7 rising closer together and ending 

 farther apart than in niaiito. In my photograph they are closer 

 together than in iiiaitta in figs. 6 and 8, but further apart than in figs. 

 10 and 12, their endings eeem much the same. (3) 5 much farther 

 from 6 in raenlia. 1 see no difference. 



I have added to the plate figs. 18 and 14, showing the neuration 

 in eiiri/ale, the species that is so close to xiantD in the appendages, as 

 to be perhaps usefal to compare with uiantu. 



The figures of the male appendages show, that though there is con- 

 siderable variation, it affects both forms and in no Avay differentiates 

 between them. 



In Plate IV. are three specimens of the male appendages of K. mnnto 

 (figs. 1, 2 and 6), two of K. manto var. caeciiia (figs. 8 and 5), and one 

 of /*-'. eunjalc. To show the variations in the prominence of the 

 shoulder of the clasp, and the size and number of the teeth, would 

 reqaire perhaps several dozen specimens, but all the variations could, 

 I think, be shown in any one of the three forms. Figs. 2 and G show 

 two forms of nutntu, in one of which the shoulder is low, in the other 

 prominent. Fig. 1 is intermediate. The eunjale is a specimen with 

 low shoulder and small teeth. Of the ccu'cilia, fig. 3 has moderate or 

 low shoulder, fig. 5 specially round prominent shoulders, very like 

 manto fig. 6, except that the teeth are rather finer. 



The specimens photographed show the head in caeciUa slightly 

 wider than in mantn, the examples, however, that are figured in Tranti. 

 Ent. Snc, 1898, show a reverse condition ; as a matter of fact there 

 seems to be no variety of clasp in one form of the species that cannot 

 be matched in the other, and curioasly enough, if Uijea and ciiri/ale 

 were added, the only result would be that the range of variation would 

 be extended, a conclusion at which I perhaps arrive from having 

 examined longer series in those species (that species?) than of manto. 

 A principal object, however, I have in view in presenting these photo- 

 graphs is to show that I was in error in 1898 in describing the lateral 

 arms of the tegumen as different in manto and in caeciiia. Comparing 

 figs. 1 and 8, or 5 and 6, there is no difference to be seen in the two 

 species, but in fig. 2 one of these arms is pressed out of position, so as 

 afford a different view, and here (in vwnto) exhibits the form that I 

 described in 1898 as belonging to caeciiia, and as figured in Trans. 

 Knt. Soc, Plate V., fig. 8a, clearly a result of method of mounting. 

 These arms are sharp in one aspect, flattened in another in this species, 

 it is difficult, exceptby accident, to display the flat aspect. In lii/ea 

 and eunjale, and still more in aet/iiojis, the flat aspect is easily shown. 

 In some other species these arms appear to be really sharp pointed 

 and not in any way flattened. 



In Mr. Warren's series of manto he finds the underside of the males 

 of the ab. caeciiia (Alps) are always of the rich mahogany colour of 

 the type form. Taking my specimens of caeciiia from the Lower 

 Engadine, it would be more correct to say they agreed with var. 

 caeciiia (Pyrenees) than with manto type. Neither statement would be 

 correct, but the approach is nearer to the Pyrenean form than to ma)Uo 



