Gcometridae of the Argentine Repuhlic. 209 
finitely long period, or turned me aside from revisional 
work in other sub-femilies, which is already claiming all 
my available time; I was therefore compelled reluctantly 
to abandon the idea, and many of the generic names are 
merely given according to the current usage of the few 
workers at the Neotropical fauna. I have, however, given 
much attention to the structural characters, particularly 
in cases of doubtful generic location; and where I have 
transferred species from one genus to another, I have 
generally assigned adequate reasons for so doing. 
In almost every instance, even with the common species, 
I have given information as to the sources of my records 
and the collections in which specimens are to be found. 
This will, I trust, be of assistance in the future elimination 
of errors of determination, etc., of which a few must of 
necessity creep into a pioneer work of this kind. The 
types of all the new species are in my own collection or in 
that of the British Museum, and I shall lose no available 
opportunity of placing co-types, or reliably determined 
specimens in the latter repository. Mr. A. F. Bayne has 
been most generous in withholding nothing which I asked 
of him, either in material or in notes, and without his aid, 
and the labours of his brother in collecting and breeding, 
this work would have been deprived of nine-tenths of its 
value. 
The measurements of wing-expanse in the descriptions 
of the new species are the theoretical extremes (the added 
length of the two forewings lAus width of thorax), not the 
superficial expanse from tip to tip in set specimens. 
S\.\h4a,m{\y—OENOCHROMINAE. 
Oenochroininae, Ortliostixinae et Meeoceratinae (Warren). 
1. “Almodes stellidaria (Guenee).” 
? Polysemia stellidaria, Guenee, Spec. Gen. des Lep., x, 
450 (1858). 
? Boarmia (Deileptenia) sqnamigera, Felder, Reise Novara, 
Lep. Het., tab. cxxvi, 11 (1875). 
Tucuman, in coll. Dognin. 
The determination of Guenee’s Polysemia stellidaria is 
perliaps somewhat problematical, though it was certainly 
a true Almodes. I did not study in M. Dognin’s collection 
the species which he (or Mr. Warren) has thus identified, 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1910.— PART III. (NOV.) P 
