173 



except in the case of certain genera of very unmistakable faciès, 

 does not allow of safe guessing. Every systematic lepidopterist, 

 whatever his particular views of mimicry, convergence, colour- 

 groups, or other bionomic questions, has learned the truth of the 

 poet's line that " things are not what they seem," and unless the 

 author describes the structure, or gives us some assurance that he 

 has examined it, and that it agrees with the assigned structural 

 characters of such-and-such a genus, it is hopeless to do an\thing 

 with the species. I do not wish to be h\'percritical, but it would 

 seem that in the case of such a species as Micronissa doddaria Ob. 

 {Et. Lép. Comp. V. (2), t. 93, f. 910), even the family could hardly 

 be hxed without more enlightenment ; the close superficial 

 resemblance between certain Geometrids, certain Epiplemids 

 (Uraniids), and even certain Drepanids is well known, and no hint 

 is given, either by word or by figure, of the structure of our 

 Micronissa. So, too, as M. Dognin has already pointed out ' 

 in his valuable synonymic notes, Urapteryx chanchamayoria Ob. 

 and U . hahapamharia are actually well-known Uraniids ; but 

 how were we to learn the affinities from the published informa- 

 tion ? M. Oberthür's beautiful figures of Microgonia [O.xydia 

 Guen.) ^ I accept with sincere thanks as a real and definite help, 

 especially where there is anything to be gained from a knowledge 

 of the exact shape, or when one wishes to fix a standard for the 

 use of a name (specific or aberrational) in the case of some variable 

 species with which one is already acquainted ; but even these do 

 not always afford the assistance which would have been given by 

 a simple description of Meyrick's — if it be not invidious to men- 

 tion one name where so many might well have served m\' purpose. 

 For I have at least one variable species of Microgonia in my 

 collection, which I have separated chiefly by the very strongly 

 swollen hindtibia of the male, and M. Culot's species, with a 

 solitary exception {Sahidodcs cxhonorata Guen., t. 89, f. 868) do 

 not possess legs. 



On the same grounds, the loss of a type, though always deplor- 

 able, would be less disastrous in the case of a well-described but 

 not figured species than in the case of a well-figured but not de- 

 scribed one. In both cases cijuall)-, to be sure, the only chance for 



^ Ann. Soc. Eni. Belg., Ivi., 137. 

 2 Et. Lép. Comp., 5 (2), t. 93-95- 



