310 
Mi^Rouis B. Prout on the 
Probably related to Herhita capona, Dognin, Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Belg., xliv, 228, with which it agrees in antennal and 
leg-structure and in the character of the subapical mark, 
and very nearly in wing-shape. The antennal form is quite 
distinct from that of typical Herhita, the “ pectinations ” 
being here mere lateral prolongations of the strong ventral 
lamellae. Hindtibia much less dilated, with the hair- 
pencil quite small. Hindtarsus not shortened (nearly as 
long as hindtibia). The elbow at slightly more promi¬ 
nent than in capona. Subcostal venation as in most 
Herhita, Ira, Erosina, etc. (SC^ from cell), whereas in 
capona the cell is a little shorter, and SC^ arises well 
down the stalk of SC^~^. 
195. Hekbita aemula (Warren). 
Herhita aeimda, Warren, Nov. Zooh, xi, 140 (1904). 
Tucuman, in coll. Dognin. 
Warren’s type was from Mexico. I know of no inter¬ 
mediate localities. 
196. Ira albirenata (Warren). 
Ira albirenata, Warren, Proc. U.S. Mus., xxx, 543 (1906). 
Ira decurtaria, Warren, loc. cit. (nec Herrich-Schaeffer). 
Warren’s type was from S.E. Peru. I cannot separate 
that form definitely from the one which Warren mis- 
identifies as decurtaria, H.-S.—recognisable by the elbowed 
termen of forewing. M. Dognin records this “decurtaria" 
from Tucuman. If there be two species, this one will 
require a new name. 
197. Microgonia nimbata (Guenee). 
Oxyd-ia nimhata, Guenee, Spec. Gen. des Lep., ix, 59 
(1858). 
Tucuman, coll. Dognin. 
Appears to be widely distributed from Colombia to 
Paraguay and Brazil. I have not attempted to cite any 
synonymy, being too uncertain which of the numerous 
very similar forms, sometimes cited as species, really 
belong here. 
