111 



without figures as he had scarcely referred to the tegniina and 

 wings so important in this sabl'amily. I tlierefore figured most of 

 my gênera, writing : « Ttie figures hère given will, however, pre- 

 vent further (^onfusion and if any synonyniy is loiind to exist, 

 which I doubt, it may indiice M'' Kiricaldy in future to amplifv 

 tiis generic indicatious «. I ani liappy to say tins tias had the 

 desired residt, and with m y figui'es lie has been able to fix up some 

 of his gênera which he has so insufficiently indicated (cf. Ilcp. 

 Exp. Stat. Haw. Plant. Assoc, Bull. Ilf, pp. 16;V178, 1907). 



It is stated that Basileocephnlus Kirk. = Urabunna Dist. and 

 KiRKALDY remarks that I hâve neglected to notice the granulated 

 anal vein of the clavus. This is a singular objection to make as 

 his ouly description of the tegmina and wings was « Tegmina 

 elongate, narrow. » 



M"" KiRKALDY now figures a tegmen of his genus Pyrrhoneura and 

 is quite right if that is to represent his genus in giving it préférence 

 over Makula Dist. In his generic indication Ite neither mentioned 

 tegmina nor wings The genus is now seen to hâve a wide range 

 through Papua, Queensland and to the Fiji Islands. 



By the figure given M"" Kirkaldy is enabled to say that tiis 

 Heronax is synonymous with my Fenuahala. I mentioned at the 

 time it appeared to hâve some affinity, but the only mention made 

 by KiRKALDY of .the important tegmina and wings was : « Allied 

 to Pâtura Westw. but the venation is différent ». That différence 

 was not described. 



1 now coine to a method of description requiring a very decided 

 protest. It is said that Pha)dasn\atocera Kirk. = Artinta Dist., anci 

 the furltier reniark is added « Distant has led himself astray by not 

 noticing that it was not the generic type that was figured but a 

 second species, which in fact is not congenei'ic ». 



In his indication of his genus P hantasmatocera Kirkaldy sim- 

 ply refers to « Tegmina narrow, elongate », makes no référence to 

 wings, and fully figures the characters of the second species he 

 describes, which I of course accepted as typical. He now tells us this 

 is not congeneric, and thati hâve led my self astray by supposing 

 that it was. Is this to be recognised as serions entotnology:' Till he 

 now figures what he regards as representing his genus, PJia)dasn)a- 

 tocera is a genus sub jiidice. 



