220 
Mi^jouis B. Prout on the 
dimorphism in the type species is very pronounced, and it 
is not surprising that Mr. Warren, with only museum 
material available, described the two sexes as separate 
species. Apparently near relatives, which I would at least 
provisionally refer to Metasiopsis, are plemyraria, Guen., 
Spec. Gen. des Lep. ix, errata {Acidalia), ossularia, Hiib., 
Zutr., fig. 900-10 {Lcptomeris), trianyularis, Warr. {vide 
infra), and no doubt ohliquaria, Warr., Nov. Zool., vii, 147 
(Antcois) ; the last-named I have not seen since my atten¬ 
tion was directed to the generic distinctness of Metasiupsis, 
but it appears to be closely allied to plemyraria, and, as 
Warren says, it reminds also of trianyularis. Probably 
further research will add others to the genus, perhaps 
including longipedata, Warr., as suggested above. Hiibner’s 
osmlaria has the palpus better developed than in Jlexicosta, 
but most of its characters agree well with those of the 
last-named, and the sexual dimorphism, though less pro¬ 
nounced, shows the same tendency ; plemyraria is even 
nearer, at least in palpal structure. 
On account of the confusion into which these genera 
have fallen, and the little attention which has been paid 
to the double areole, even by authors who, like Hulst, have 
intended to use it as generic, it will not be out of place to 
point out wherein the new genus differs from others pos¬ 
sessing the character. From Euacidalia, Pack., which 
virtually agrees with it in leg-structure in both sexes, 
MctasiopAs is distinguished by the shape of the wings and 
by the point of origin of SC^ of the forewing; in Euacidalia 
this vein is stalked with SC^A From Pigia, H.-S., it also 
differs in both these respects (in Pigia SC'^ is short-stalked, 
or at least connate, with SC^'^), but here, in addition, the 
$ hindleg has four well-developed spurs. From the large 
and somewhat heterogeneous group which, pending fuller 
revision, I unite as Pdamalia, Hiib., in which SC'^ arises 
from the cell as in Metadopsis, the absence of the median 
spurs in the $ affords the readiest distinction; but I do 
not know of any species of Hamalia with vein C of the 
hindwing as in Metasiopsis. Scelolophia, Hulst, and Tri¬ 
centra, Warr., have SC‘^ and of the hindwing connate 
or very short-stalked, apart from various “secondary sexual” 
characters, ^emaeopus, H.-S., agrees with Metasiopsis in 
forewing venation, but differs in almost everything else— 
size, shape, leg-structure (both sexes), hindwing venation, 
etc. The Old World genera are not at all likely to collide 
