Hdcrogynis canalensis, n. sp. 73 



wanting, and so specific dififerences that might have been 

 detected in this way have no means of expression.* 



The grenital armature of H. eanale7isis differs in no 

 respect that I have been able to discover from that of H. 

 penella. In both the apex of the tegiimen is pointed, 

 whilst in H. paradoxa it is bifid at the apex. 



It also agrees with H. penella, in the larva in its first 

 skin being without the stellate or coronate, secondary 

 tubercles, which are present in If. 2Mrci(loxa at hatching, 

 and in both species are conspicuous in all the further 

 larval stages (Plate XII). 



In the full-grown larva, these curious points (photo- 

 graped in Ent. Trans. 1902, Plate XXVIII, as they appear 

 in newly-hatched IT. paradoxa) are very different in H. 

 paradoxa from the other two species, those of If. penella and 

 H. canalensis, more nearly resemble each other. Though 

 thicker and more robust than in the others, the coronets 

 are in H. paradoxa only about half the size they attain in 

 the other two species. The large spines are short and 

 thick, about 0'03 mm. long, and the smaller or secondary 

 spines are short blunt teeth, very few in number. 



In H. penella the tubular base is larger and more cylin- 

 drical than in the others, and the long spines are seen to 

 arise rather from its outer surface than from its margin ; 

 they do not widely diverge, they are about twice as long as 

 those of H. paradoxa ; the smaller or secondary spines are 

 numerous, long, sharp and needle-like, and arise from the 

 margin of the tubular portion, and may be seen passing 

 round their margin, inside the larger spines. 



In H. canalensis the form is more like that oill.p)aradoxa, 

 the size that of II. penella. The base is wide and salver- 

 shaped, the large spines spreading, and the secondary ones 

 are even shorter than H. paradoxa, so short and blunt as 

 often to appear to be absent. 



These coronets vary very much in size in all the species, 

 but between the species they not only compare generally 

 as above noted, but the same differences are observable 

 when those nearest in size and form are compared. 



On comparing those of H. p)enella and H. cancdensis, 

 those of canalensis always have the tubular portion more 

 open and salver-shaped, in penella it is straighter and more 



* I see Professor Poulton in the President's address (Trans. Ent. 

 Soo. 1903, p. Ixxxii, Ixxxiii) presents a very similar reflection, though 

 with a somewhat diflerent appHcation in view. 



