— 146 — 



nulate" and being arbitrary, might well be dismissed, the more so as 

 they are of no importance. 



A thorough examination of a series of both species has given 

 the following result. 



It was not possible to find any difference in the structure of the 

 palpi. The tuft of hair (or rather scales) on the Irons of virgo is only 

 very insignificant and not a character of generic value. The antennae 

 of the male are ciliated in both species, though very short in virgo; a 

 difference in the structure of the antennae could not be found, even under 

 the microscope, it proved, on the contrary, perfectly identical in both. 

 „Build slender" is not essential. It was also impossible to find any typi- 

 cal differ(^nce in the form of the лving. Consequently there remains 

 only one impoi-tant difference: the dorsal crests on the abdomen of 

 ametkystivK, which are absent in vi)-go. These crests are formed by the 

 somewhat produced and upstanding terminal cover of the segments 

 and not accompanied by any structural alterations in the skeleton of 

 the abdomen. Another character, which is not mentioned by Sir Geo. 

 H a m p s n I have found in the female of virgo, i. e. the most curious 

 form of the apophyses on the 8-th st(4'nite. These apophyses as shown 

 in figs. 4 and 6, are exc(^ssively strong, showing a very large lumen 

 at their base and are formed somewhat like a slipper. In nmeihgstiwi 

 these apophyses are normal. 



We have now to solve the question as to how much significance 

 should be attached to the two latter characters. 



The presence of the raised and produced cover on the abdominal 

 segments, resembling tufts, can by no means be considered a generic 

 character without the support of other differenciating characters. As to 

 the form of the apoi)hyses in virgo it is so uncommon a fact, that it is 

 impossible to make any deductions from it with reference to their 

 systematic importance. 



It remains only to compare the genital apparatus of both species. 



The male genital apparatus has a striking similarity in both spe- 

 cies. We see the same assymmetry in the valves („harpes" after the 

 terminology of Mr. P i e r с e), the right one being much stouter; the 

 same form of the uncus and absence of a scaphium; the same form of 

 the clasper and other processes on the inner side of the valves. 



The female abdomen is also very much alike in both species, 

 with the excei)tion of the aforesaid apophyses in virgo, and the genital 

 organs are both distinguished by the double bursa copulatrix, Avhich 

 has not l)een found yet in any other of the noctuid moths. 



Thus we have seen that only a few characters for distinguis- 

 hing (rmefhysiina and virgo can be found. These are, moreover, charac- 

 ters of secondary value, whereas all pi'incipal, generic characters indi- 

 cate that a separation of the two species in to two genera cannot be 

 maintained. The name Callogonin H amps on has therefore to be re- 

 garded as a synonym of Telesilla H.-S. 



Revue Russe d'Entom. 1909. Xs 1—2. (Juin 1909). 



