128 Mr. R. I. Pocock on a 
EXPLANATION OF PLATE VII. 
Fig. 1. Holochroma prasina spadicocampa, g, p. 111. 
Fig. 2. Racheospila penthica, 3, p. 115. 
Fig. 3. Macaria laguatia, 9, p. 126. 
Fig. 4. Thalassodes floccosa, $, p. 121. 
Fig. 5. Phellinodes biapicata, 3, p. 108. 
Fig. 6. Prasinocyma rhodocycla, 2, p. 121. 
Fig. 7. Milionia anisochrysa, 2, p. 127. 
Fig. 8. Racheospila lugentiscripta, 3, p. 117. 
Fig. 9. Anisozyga charma, 3, p. 112. 
Fig. 10. Prohydata ignita, 9, p. 124. 
Fig. 11. Hemithea antigrapha, 3, p. 122. 
Fig. 12. Dysphania porphyroides, 3, p. 111. 
Fig. 13. Oospila circumsessa, 3, p. 119. 
Fig. 14. Berta chrysolineata philippina, 3, p. 125. 
Fig. 15. Neromia enotes, 3, p. 128. 
Fig. 16. Phrudocentra senescens, 3, p. 117. 
Fig. 17. Racheospila inequalis, 3, p. 116. 
Fig. 18. Hemithea distinctaria leta, 3, p. 128. 
Fig. 19. Neurotoca insolens, 3, p. 124. 
Fig. 20. Antharmostes simplicimargo, 3, p. 120, 
Fig. 21. Comibena hemictenes, 2, p. 114. 
Fig. 22. Spaniocentra isospania, 9, p. 113. 
Fig. 23. Agathia curvifiniens, 3, p. 112. 
Fig. 24. Oospila circumdata striolata, 3, p. 118. 
Fig. 25. Mimandria cataracte, 3, p. 110. 
Fig. 26. Pingasa lahayei austrina, 3, p. 111. 
Fig. 27. Hemitheu notospila, 3, p. 122. 
Fig. 28. Phellinodes leucoplethes, 3, p. 109. 
Fig. 29. Bathycolpodes torniflorata, 3, p. 120. 
TX.—A new Genus of Urside. 
By R. I. Pocock, F.R.S. 
In 1914 (P.Z.S. p. 940) I pointed out that mainly by the 
structure of the feet the existing species of bears might be 
referred to the following genera :—Thalarctos, Ursus, Tre- 
marctos, Helarctos, and Melursus. On the evidence supplied 
by the feet, two species were assigned to Tremarctos— 
namely, ornatus, the type of the genus, from the Andes of 
South America and thibetanus from Central Asia. The latter 
has been previously and universally referred to the genus 
Ursus, and was the only well-marked species of the family 
to escape the gift of a special generic or subgeneric title. 
Subsequent comparison between the skulls of the two 
species in question convinces me that they cannot con- 
sistently be ascribed to the same genus. I propose, there- 
