Geometridae of the Argentine EejpuUie. 323 
weakly paler at its base. Hindwing witli costa ratlier long, apex 
moderately pronounced, distal margin weakly crenulate; white, 
with a few fuscous scales in basal part and moderately dusted with 
fuscous in distal half; cell-spot rather large, dark fuscous ; a fuscous 
postmedian line from inner margin close to tornus to costa at about 
three-fourths, sinuate basewards in submedian area and very weakly 
between radials, slightly projecting on M* and R^, darker-spotted 
on veins ; terminal line very fine, greyish fuscous, with dark dots 
between the veins as in forewing; fringe concolorous with wing. 
Forewing beneath whitish grey, more brownish costally and distally, 
costal region speckled with fuscous; a small cell-spot and a 
moderately distinct postmedian. Hindwing beneath nearly as 
above. 
Puente del Inca, bred November 12, 1903 (W. M. 
Bayne), type in coll. L. B. Prout; a second $ from the 
same locality, December 15, 1905, in coll. L. B, Prout; 
others, both sexes, in coll. A. F. Bayne; Balde, one $ in 
coll. A. F. Bayne. 
The $ seems to have the hindwing less light, and 
perhaps shows other slight differences; unfortunately 
I omitted to make detailed notes on Mr. Bayne’s $s. I 
possess one myself, which I assumed to be referable to this 
species, but which may rather be a very close ally, as I 
find, in addition to the more superficial distinctions, that 
it has a shorter 3rd joint to the palpus than have my ^s. 
The specimen is larger (44 mm.), browner, more strongly 
dark-dusted, particularly in the hindwing, the lines are 
rather weak, the postmedian in both wings straighter, the 
cell-spot of hindwing wanting above. Mr. W. M. Bayne 
supplied upon it the following note : “ kil. 168, Transandine 
Railway, three pupae under stones. Two have emerged,* 
the other remains; I have kept these, hoping the other 
might be a but have had to kill them.” I suspect the 
second of the $s must be a specimen in coll. A. F. Bayne 
on which I made the note that it was rather larger (^. e. 
than typical specimens), “ with hindwing a little darker and 
with other slight differences, 2 ^ossiblg a distinct species; 
but I cannot at the moment follow the matter up. To 
judge from the few examples which I have seen, the 
Chilian group to which S. eudora is the most nearly 
related (/S', ehilenaria, Feld., etc.) show a good deal of sexual 
dimorphism, as well as of individual variation, and it is 
* Mine is dated as bred November 3, 1905.—L. B. P. 
Y 2 
