—73- 



Note on the Genus Platythyris. 

 By a. R. Grote, A, M. 



In an article, Ento. Am., Vol. IV, p. 27, speaking of the above 

 genus, Mr. J. B. Smith, the author, says, that this genus contradicts 

 nearly every family character of the Thyridce, to wliich Groie and Rdbin- 

 .son referred it. Boisduval, I believe, figured a species of this genus as 

 Thyris vitrina. Dr. Clemens described the genus as l)elonging to the 

 Toriricid(2. Since we figured the more common species 1 have stated in 

 print several times that the genus possibly belongs to the Nocittichv and 

 I found allied Asiatic forms in the British INIuseum (as far as I recollect 

 Felder figures one), recorded under the generic title Varnia. Consult 

 our paper in Trans. Am. Ento. Societv upon Mr. Walker's types. Dr. 

 Clemens describes the singular larva (){ Platythyris {Dysodca is, I believe, 

 preoccupied), and his description (Proc, Acad. N. S. Pnil. , i860, p. 350) 

 says that the larva is quite as peculiar as the perfect insect. The larva 

 has a disagreeable odor and makes a Ctiiie im Eupaturium agcratoides. 

 This accords with Thyris larva in a vei\\ striking manner, as cited by Mr. 

 Smith in the article referred to above. We made a tribal or subfamily 

 division of the Thyridce on account of the contiadictory characters, viz; 

 Plalythyrini ox PlatyihyriiidB iiQCOX(X\\v^3i<, Wit \\w\. the division. In my 

 opinion (I have no specimens at the nmnient) the moth may remain as 

 we placed it, until its full characters be com[)ared with the Xoctiiidce. It 

 is not a Tortrix, as Clemens described it. In a letter to me Dr. Clemens 

 stated that he could not remember his grounds for putting the moth in 

 the Tortricidce. He recognized the moth from our figure in. the Annals 

 of the N. Y. Lyceum and wrote that, wiUi our different estimctte of its 

 structure, we were pardonable in not recognizing his description of it 

 previously under the Tortricidce. I judged from his letter, that he was 

 satisfied he was wrong in his classification of the moth, and that the in- 

 sect belonged, if not to the Thyridce, at least to the Macrolepidoptera. 

 We afterwards made the synonymical reference and, cm account oi Dy- 

 sodea being used, retained for our P. fasciata the name Platythyris ocu- 

 lataita, Clem. Staudinger credits Boisduval's species, described from 

 Spain, to North America. I think this is surmise, perhaps an erroneous 

 surmise. There is no reason why Platythyris should not be found in 

 Southern Europe. As far as I recollect, Boisduval's figure does not cor- 

 respond with our North American Platythyris oculatana. In any event 

 we have to do with a singular form but there is no reason, I ihmk, for 

 separating it as a family. It agrees well enough as a subfamily of the 

 Thyridce, until we have more information, to which family we were the 

 more disposed to refer it since Boisduval preceded us. 



