Gcometridae of the Argentine Repuhlic. 253 
of three series of dark vein-dots, representing the transverse lines, 
and a moderately distinct cell-spot ; subbasal line curved, from about 
one-sixth costa, followed by a faintly pale line; antemedian line 
from about two-fifths costa to before one-half inner margin, traceable 
chiefly by a faintly pale line which precedes it and by the vein-dots, 
somewhat dentate ; postmedian from about two-thirds costa, com¬ 
mencing obliquely distad, then parallel with termen, a blunt lobe 
towards middle, the dots on and M' being placed further distad 
than the rest ; the veins, especially R^ and the medians, somewhat 
darkened across cell, and less distinctly distally ; no terminal line ; 
outer half of fringe paler than inner. Hindwing rather paler than 
forewing, unmarked. Underside unmarked. Head and thorax 
above concolorous with forewing, abdomen with hindwing. 
Puente del Inca (W. M. Bayne), type in coll. L. B. 
Prout. 
88. Chrismopteryx vicina. (Prout), nov. sp. 
(Plate XLVIII, fig. 33.) 
9. 39-40 mm. Colour and general aspect of G. expolita, to which 
it is very closely related, differing as follows. The lines somewliat 
better defined, and with traces of additional ones between subbasal 
and antemedian, and distally to postmedian ; subbasal line some¬ 
what more oblique ; antemedian more angled in cell; postmedian 
not appreciably inbent on R^ ; a slightly darkened terminal line, 
consisting of a series of somewhat crescentic marks separated by the 
vein-ends ; underside paler, a darkened cell-spot and postmedian 
present on each wing. 
Puente del Inca, April 1904 (W. M. Bayne), type in 
coll. L. B. Prout. (An extremely worn, almost scaleless 
^ taken in the same locality in April 1902, by Mr. A. F. 
Bayne, seems to belong to this species, but may be 
C. expolita.) Punta de las Vacas, 9> March 16, 1905 
(W. M. Bayne), in coll. L. B. Prout. A third 2 in coll. 
A. F. Bayne. 
It is not impossible that this species is only the ^ of 
the preceding, as unfortunately no 9 is known of that, 
nor any reliable ^ of this; but Mr. A. F. Bayne, who has 
a very true eye for moths, considers the two distinct, and 
the differences noted above, though small, are not wholly 
unimportant, so that I am inclined to agree with his 
view. 
