220 ©. R. Osten Sacken: 
Eriocera. 
Macq. Dipt. Exot. I, 1, p. 74, Tab. 10, f. 2; 1838; O. Sacken, 
Monogr. etc. IV, p. 244. 
Evanioptera Guerin, Voy. de la Coquille, Zool. II, 2, p. 287, 
T'ab.20, f£: 2; 1838. 
Caloptera Gu£rin, 1. c. (on the plate). 
Pterocosmus Walker, List ete. I, p. 78; 1848. 
Allarithmia Loew, Bernstein u. Bernsteinfauna 1850, p, 38. 
Oligomera Doleschall, Natuurk. Tijdschr. voor Nederl. Indie, Vol. 
XIV, P-.387.,Tab. 7.8: 1857: 
Physecrania Bigot, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1859, p. 123, Tab. 3, f. 1; 
1859. 
Ex parte: Arrhenica O. Sacken, Proc. Ac. N. Sc. Philad. 1859, 
p, 243. 
This genus principally occurs in the tropical regions of Asia 
and America; in the United States it extends farther north and 
reaches the White Mountains; in Asia is does not extend East of 
Wallace’s dividing-line between the Indo-Malayan and Austro-Malayan 
Archipelago (except one species which oceurs in Celebes); it has not 
been found in New Guinea or Australia. From Africa two species 
are known (Madagascar and Mozambique). Three species have been 
found fossil in prussian amber. The number of known american 
species is twenty five; that of asiatie species about thirty. 
The ordinary number of posterior cells of Eriocerae is four; 
but some species have five cells; the distribution of these latter 
species is somewhat remarkable: eight species from South - Eastern 
Asia, one from Madagascar and two from the United States have 
five posterior cells, but not a single one from South- America and 
Mexico. Some Eriocerae have very long antennae in the male sex; 
early writers mistook such species for Megistocerae; they occur in 
the Indo-Malayan Archipelago (three species), in the United States 
(four species) and fossil in amber (two species); but not a single one 
is found among the numerous species from South-America and Mexico. 
Two Eriocerae from the United States have five posterior cells 
and long antennae in the male sex at the same time. (These remarks 
are intended to complete and correct those given by me on the same 
subject — 1. c. p. 251). I do not think that it is worth while to 
maintain the subgenus Arrhenica, which I introduced as a genus 
in my earlier paper for certain species with a peculiar structure of 
the antennae. 
I give the description of four new species from Ceylon which 
