— 1 69 — 



4th. — So far as the head is concerned the insect it seems to me must 

 be considered a geometer rather than a Bombycid. In size, it is no 

 smaller comparatively than many cither Geometers. The antenna? tongue 

 and palpi are Geometrid rather than Bombycid. And the shape of the 

 front and occiput is paralleled in others of the Geometers. At the most 

 the parts of the head which Dr. Packard emphasises as being of great im- 

 portance in showing the Bombyqid standing of the insect, might serve for 

 generic but certainly not for family separation. 



5th. — I have made no detailed examination of the thorax, and can 

 not speak of any bearing this may have on determination. Superficially 

 it agrees with the Geometers. 



6th. — So far as the venation is concerned, Dr. Packard is as far as I 

 can see, mistaken in saying there are four median veins, unless he ac- 

 knowledge the same to be true of all Geometers. I have examined 

 several wings, fully denuded by the Chloride of Lime and Carbolic acid 

 process, and placed in Balsam and I can not find any feature which is 

 not reproduced in the figures of venation given by Dr. Packard in his 

 Geometrid Moths. In the position of vein 5 (the independent vein) it is 

 very different from Croco/a, though not from Nudaria. As a matter of 

 fact however the venation of many of the Geofnetridae and Bombycidae 

 exactly correspond, and little stress can be placed on venation. But 

 Euphanessa is undoubtedly a Geometer on this basis, or I have made a 

 very often repeated error in observation. 



7th. — There is a great difference in the relative size of the legs of 

 the Bombycidae and Geometridae. Mr. Smith has called my attention to 

 the fact that in the Bombycidae the hind legs are usually as small and as 

 weak or smaller and weaker than the fore legs. The contrary is the case in 

 the Geometridae. On this basis Euphanessa is a strongly marked Geometer. 



8th. — So far as rny observation has gone, the genitalia of the male 

 of Euphanessa mendica follow the type o( the Geometridae. Certainly the 

 genitalia differ very materially from those of Crocota. The lateral claspers 

 are somewhat the same, but the supra-anal plate of Euphanessa is a 

 slender down curved spine after the ordinary form of the Geometridae, 

 while Crocota has at the termination of this plate, another spine beneath 

 and within the terminal incurved point, which, curved backward, seems 

 to have a scissors movement toward the terminal spine for clasping. 



Thus there is nothing which would make the* placing of this insect 

 among the Geometridae an error, while many things make its position 

 among the Bombycidae anomalous and forced. There are many things 

 in which it agrees only with the Geometridae, none in which it agrees 

 only with the Bombycidae. It seems therefore that Eupjhanessa must be 

 catalogued with the Geometridae. 



ENTOMOLOGICA AMERICANA 26 



