1872.] 165 



Although Mr. Butler believes that Iliibner's figure is iratcncled to represent a male 

 insect, as possessing a well developed anal tuft of radiating scales (this character, 

 however, oeeiu's also in the Javanese females, and is, therefore, without value), I 

 rather believe it to be meant for a female, on account of the feebly pectinated 

 antennae. The anal tiift, as it entirely covers the sexual organs, may have been the 

 cause of Hiibner's mistake. In such cases, only an examination of the retinaculum 

 can furnish positive evidence of the sex of the individual. 



The want of the two long tufts of carmine hairs at the base of the abdomen 

 most probably must be ascribed to the sex, such tufts being apparently confined (at 

 this moment I do not recollect an instance to the contrary) to the male insect. 

 They are often totally hidden ; and this, probably, is the case with the male in Mr. 

 Snellen's collection. 



As for the length of the palpi, I )iotice that the females examined by me agi-ee 

 in tliis respect with Hiibner's figures, and that Mr. Snellen's specimen ( <J ) holds an 

 intermediate position between Hiibner's and Butler's insects. 



I think, also, no value can be attached to the size of the abdomen or to its 

 spinous processes as figured by Hiibner ; — the former depending chiefly upon sex or 

 desiccation, and the latter, formed by some diverging long scales on the sides of the 

 abdomen, occurring also in Mr. Snellen's male. Moreover, I fail to understand how 

 Mr. Butler can regard these processes as a generic difference, seeing that there is 

 nothing visible of this character in the representation of Crino BescJcei, the species 

 which, according to him, should be the type of the genus Crino. 



The specific differences summed up by Mr. Butler must certainly be ascribed 

 for the most part to inaccuracies of the draughtsman. In order to prove this, it 

 may be sufiicient to fix the attention upon the inner margin of the front wings in 

 both of Hiibner's figures, which is waved only in fig. 1, and also upon the hind- 

 wings in the same figure, which are unlike one another. Moreover, Hiibner's figures 

 are entirely too dark in colour, and have almost all the markings (the pale basal 

 patches excepted) too sharply defined, instead of the under-side of the wings only, 

 as Mr. Butler states (as for the latter character, I rather incline to the contrary 

 opinion) . 



In the specimens examiiied by me, the pale costal band does not totally extend 

 to the apex and is broader than in Mr. Butler's figure, especially at the base of the 

 wings ; the central marginal line of the hind-wings is continued round the margin, 

 but, on both the upper and under-sides, is converted into spots, as in Hiibner's fig. 2 ; 

 the transverse band of the front wings is strongly waved and not nearly parallel to 

 the outer margin, and the fringe of all the wings is tolerably long. 



For these reasons, I persist in my assertion that Tarsolepis remicauda, Butler, 

 is identical, generically as well as specifically, with Hiibner's Crinodes Summeri. 



I think it not impossible that C. Sommeri occurs also in the New World,* 

 although I rather believe it to be so considered in eiTor, as seems to be the ease with 

 Hemerollemma peropaca, which, according to Hiibner (" Zutriige zur Sammlung 

 exotischer Schmetterlinge," No. 271, fig- 541 and 542), is found at Monte Video, 



* I am informed (October 14th, 1872) by Jlr. F. Walker, that at present he has no opportimity 

 of inspecting the sijccimen from Rio J;ineu-o, mentioned in the " Li.st of the Specimens of Lupi- 

 dopterons Insects in the Collection of the Biitish Museum," which is uii longer in Mr. Fry's 

 collection. — C. R. 



