PLATE IV. 



Fig. I. Hypopta palmata B. & McD. (Type). 



The sharp dark outline of the venation is not clear enough in 



the reproduction. 



Fig. 2. GivJra tninuta B. & McD. (Type). 

 Fig. 3. HamUcara gilensis B. & McD. (Type). 

 Fig. 4. Pomeria itsalana Stkr. 



The black veining is more distinct in the original. 



Fig. 5. Givira ethela N. & D. 



Reproduced from a poor specimen in Coll. Barnes, the only one 

 available; the white dot at end of cell should show more prom- 

 inently, and the dark portions be less contrasted. 



Fig. 6. Givira mucidus Edw. (male). 



Fig. 7. Givira arbeloides Dyar. 



The specimen reproduced is rather faded and the maculation 

 appears rather blurred. 



Fig. 8. Givira mucidus Edw. (female). 



The right side is too dark and indistinct. 



Givira theodori Dyar. 



Givira cornelia N. & D. 



Poor reproduction; the dark and light shades are too contrasted 



and the small brown patch on the centre of inner margin is not 



clear. 



Givira anna Dyar. 



The dark shades are too prominent, and the white basal half 



of inner margin too obscure. 



Givira marga B. & McD. (Type). 



The dark shades are again too marked; in the original they are 

 merely light brown. 



Givira lotta B. & McD. (Type). 



The white basal portion of inner margin should appear more 



distinct. 



Hamilcara atra B. & McD. (Type). 

 Striations are not clear enough in the reproduction. 



Cossula magiiifica Stkr. 



Very poor specimen, and not well recognizable from this figure. 



Zeuzera pyrina L. 



Toronia lusena Barnes. (Type). 



The black banding of fore-wings is much more distinct in the 



original. 



