( xiii ) 



species : reticulata, prunata, pyropata, testata, popidata, asso- 

 ciata. Thus Hiibner's genus Lygris is almost a clean one for 

 this type ; as far as he knew the species, he left two in 

 Eustroma, while in Lyf/tis he includes only one dissonant, 

 while similar looking, yellow winged form, which would 

 apparently fall into the section Cosmorhoe of Rhewnajnera, 

 were we to adopt Lederer's classification, and name his 

 sections of Cidaria. Upon this ground Lederer's action in 

 choosing Lyyris instead of Eustroma may be defended. But 

 in any event his action cancels the effect of the fact that 

 Eustroma precedes Lyyris on the same page. From that time 

 the type of Eustroma must be sought in either suffumata or 

 silaceata, the remaining species after his restriction. Both 

 these and fJiiviata are referred by Mr. Meyriek to Hydriomene, 

 but this reference should clearly make Etistroma a synonym 

 of Hydriomene (teste Meyriek), and has no power to disturb 

 Lederer's prior action as to Lyyris. In these genera authors 

 are at variance as to their character and extent, but a struc- 

 tural type once precised by diagnosis, and with species covered 

 by the original application of the generic term should be 

 left as permanent. Another author may properly insist upon 

 sufumata or silaceata as distinct from Hydrio)nene, and restore 

 Eustroma for one of these, which became the true types of 

 Eustrofiia after Lederer's course with regard to Lyyris, and 

 the consequent removal of reticidata and prunata to that 

 genus. In this way we shall never gain ground in fixity, if 

 each succeeding author has the right to overturn the proper 

 work of his predecessor. Lederer gives us Lyyris popidata as 

 a second landmark in the Cidarian wilderness. In the 

 absence of any statement by Mr. Meyriek, showing that 

 Lederer's prior action should not be followed, we may assume 

 that Lyyris is the proper title for the genus, and that the type 

 \^ po'pidata. It would seem, indeed, that Mr. Meyriek has 

 here, as perhaps elsewhere, taken simply the oldest generic 

 name he found for any one of the species he would include 

 under his genus, without reference to its later use or restric- 

 tion. That this may sometimes be really the case appears 

 possible from Mr. Meyrick's use of the following term. 



'' Hyyrochroa, Meyriek, l. c, 118. Hiibner employs this 



