Geometridac of the Argentine RepvMic. 
249 
Tliis species and a few others which are referred by 
Warren to Hammaptera may almost be regarded as tran¬ 
sitions between that genus and Euphyia, Hlib. (type, picata, 
Hlib.), which is evidently the genus frequently referred to 
by Warren in his papers as Epirrho'e. The true Epirrlio'e 
(type alternata^ Miill. = soeiata, Bork.) has the areole simple, 
and I am not aware of its occurrence in the Neotropical 
Region. 
81. “Euphyia eductata (Walker).” 
Cidaria eductata, Walker, List Lep. Ins., xxv, 1397 (1862). 
Tucuman, in coll. Dognin. 
Quoted merely on M. Dognin’s authority. He records 
it as a separate species in his MS. list, and under the 
present genus. Schaus, on the other hand, refers it to 
Hammaptera emherizata (Guen.), vide Proc. Zool. Soc. 
Lond., 1896, 648, and this appears to me correct; Dognin’s 
eductata will probably prove different. 
82. Euphyia euficorpus (Dognin). 
Anapalta riifieorpus, Dognin, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., 1, 205 
(1906). 
Tucuman (type), in coll. Dognin. 
I have failed to discover any grounds for maintaining 
Warren’s genus Anapalta (Nov. Zool., xi, 43) as distinct 
from Euphyia,H\A). —unless possibly for a few species with 
different palpi, such as aeerbata, Feld., for which Anapalta 
was originally proposed. In any case, most of tlie species 
which Warren now refers to his genus have the $ antenna 
well ciliated, and the palpus, so far as I have yet investi¬ 
gated, not materially different from typical Euphyia. 
83. Euphyia ruficoesia (Dognin). 
Anapalta o'uficoesia, Dognin, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., xlviii, 
359 (1904). 
Los Vascj[uez (type), in coll. Dognin. 
84. Euphyia corrivulata (Warren). 
Epirrho'e corrivulata, Warren, Nov. Zool., vii, 173 (1900), 
Parana, Entre Rios, ^ (type) in coll. Rothschild. 
I have not seen any other examples certainly referable 
to this— i.e. no others of Warren’s typical form. It is 
