408 Miscellaneous. 
Walker described his genus Deva in the twelfth volume of his 
‘Catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera,’ p. 962, and included in it 
two species, D. stimulans,= Plusiodonta Thom, Guen., and D. con- 
ducens,= P, chalcytoides, Guen. Ou the following page he described 
another new genus, Gadera, with two species, G. incitans and 
G. repellens, both without localities, though he concluded that 
G. repellens was Brazilian. As a matter of fact both are natives of 
Jamaica. 
Now as P. compressipalpis, from the United States, is the type of 
Plusiodonta, and differs from all the other species associated with it 
in its pectinated antenne, and as the species of Deva and Gadera 
differ from one another in no character whatever, the bulk of the 
species of Guenée’s genus Plusiodonta fall into Deva, Walker ; 
whilst the species referred to Deva by Walker, Grote, and myself 
subsequently, fall into Polychrysia, Hubner. 
The genus Polychrysia, in my opinion, is a true Plusiid (whereas 
Deva belongs to the Calpide); it differs from typical Plusia in its 
enormously developed Deltoid palpi, the terminal article of which is 
curved, compressed, and tapering, the fringe of scales being elon- 
gated below the article; the outer margin of the primaries is 
usually, but not invariably, subangulated. 
The genus Polychrysia will include P. splendida, = Deva splendida, 
from Japan; P. c-aureum,= Plusia c-aureum, from Europe; P. mi- 
kudina,=Plusia mikadina, from Japan; P. purpurigera,= Deva 
purpurigera, from the United States ; P. moneta,= Plusia moneta, 
from Europe; and P. palligera,=Deva palligera, from the United 
States. 
Of the above species P. c-aureum and P, mikadina are nearly 
allied, but the former has the golden marking on the centre of the 
primaries of a ©-shape, whereas that on P. mikadina is comma- 
shaped, » ; at the same time it is quite possible that a large series 
will prove this to be an insufficient distinguishing character. 
Dr. von Lendenfeld on the Central Cavity ir Euplectella. 
By E. A. Mincuin. 
In the last number of this Journal (April 1892, p. 337) Dr. von 
Lendenfeld calls me to task for having, as he says, attributed 
to him the statement (which he well terms ‘ preposterous”) that 
the central cavity of Huplectella aspergillum is a pseudoscular tube 
forming part of the inhalant system. He adds that he never 
doubted the exhalant nature of the central cavity in Huplectella and 
that he fails to see how any one can gather from his statements 
such a meaning as I impute to them. 
No one would gather from reading Dr. von Lendenfeld’s note 
that everything I inferred as to his opinions was supported by full 
quotations from his writings, and I will therefore content myself 
by merely amplifying what I have already written. 
In the first place I quoted from his ‘Monograph of the Horny 
