1885.] 21 



Curtis placed the sexes of sociella in two different genera, Melia, 

 Curtis, and Ilytliia, Latreille, but neither can be retained, because 

 Aphomia, Hlib., had been applied to the genus long previously. 



Some confusion has arisen with regard to the genus Ilithyia, as 

 the author employed the name for two different genera. Latreille 

 first created the genus Ilithyia in 1825 for Cramhus colomwi in his 

 " Families Naturelles du -Regne Animal," but he did not characterize it. 



Duponchel, in the " Dictionnaire universel d'Histoire Naturelle " 

 (d'Orbigny), confounded colonum with carneUa, L., for if we refer to 

 Latreille's " Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum," &c., 1809, vol. iv, 

 p. 231, we find that Cramhus colonum is synonymous with Tinea colon- 

 ella, L., Fab., Hiib., Tinea colonum, Fab., sociella, L. 



In the edition of 1817 of Cuvier's "Eegne Animal," Latreille 

 leaves colonella among the GaJlericB, and says that " Cramhus carneus 

 and several other species " (which he does not state) should form a 

 sub-genus of Cramhus. 



In the edition of 1829 of the same work he mentions the genus 

 Ilithyia, Latr. (Cramhus, F.), comprising Cramhus carneus and s^everal 

 other species having knotted antennae, but again omits to say which 

 species should be placed in the genus. 



Ilithyia, Latr., being synonymous with Aphomia as regards colon- 

 ella, L., and not having been applied regularly to carnella, L. (which 

 belongs to the genus Salehria, as already explained), should not be 

 retained as a genus. 



Melissohlaptes hipunctanus. Curt. — This insect has been confused 

 to a great extent with anellus, S.Y., on account of the similarity in 

 colour ; it has, however, narrower fore-wings, the costa much less 

 rounded ; the wings bear a more uniform colour, anellus being more 

 varied and mottled ; the safest way to distinguish the two insects is 

 by the neuration. Zeller founded his genus Melissohlaptes on hipunc- 

 tanus, for that species has only seven veins to the hind-wings, whilst 

 anellus has eight ; besides, in the fore-wings of hipunctanus vein 9 

 arises from the common stem of 7 and 8, which are forked, whilst in 

 anellus vein 7 originates from the common stem of 8 and 9. As the 

 neuration of both sexes is identical in each species, I consider that 

 anellus is generically distinct from hipunctanus, and propose for the 

 former the generic appellation of Hornigia, in honour of my friend 

 Mr. J. von Hornig of Vienna, a distinguished Entomologist. 



The larva of hipunctanus has not been satisfactorily identified, as 

 no doubt it has always been confounded with that of anellus. 



