Mr. E. Meyrick on Australian Lepidoptera. 529 



racters " of Chry solar entia^ Butl. ; tliese are defined by 

 Butler to be that the fore wings are " rather more acute " 

 (than in Larentia^ but the difference is imaginary), and that the 

 hind wings are " usually yellow j " it is impossible to regard 

 this as a generic characterization. 



Euholia undulata^ Ros., is a species of CepJialissa^ 



The specimens identified (probably quite correctly) as 

 Coremia permissata^ Walk., and C. regidata. Walk., are 

 (according to Dr. Lucas's types) both identical with Epyaxa 

 subidaria, Gn. 



Coremia languescens, Ros., is a species of Gephalissa. 



Di2)tychopJiora ochracealis^ Walk. Mr. Rosenstock appears 

 to have overlooked my correction of the synonymy of this. 



Thinasotia aurantiaca, Meyr. This identification is in- 

 correct, unless Dr. Lucas mixed the two species, which is 

 improbable, as T. aurantiaca does not to my knowledge 

 occur south of the Hunter River : the species intended is 

 (according to Dr. Lucas's specimen) T. hivittella^ Don. Both 

 are correctly referred to the genus Hednota. 



Sorocostia vetustella, Walk. Stated to be quite overlooked 

 by me, and described as a new genus of Crambida? ; it is, 

 however, a A^oZa (Lithosiada3) , and was of course intentionally 

 omitted ; it was described by Zeller again under the name of 

 Nola strictalis (Verb, zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 1872). 



Prionophora ruptella^ Walk, (quoted under Ancyhlomia). 

 Mr. Rosenstock lias overlooked my reference of this species 

 (confirmed by Zeller) to the Noctuina. 



Tortrix leucaniatia, Walk. This reference is certainly 

 erroneous ; the species intended is T. glaphyrana, Meyr. 

 T. leucaniana is confined to New Zealand, without doubt, and 

 could not be mistaken for T. glaphyrana by any one well 

 acquainted with both (I have seen both in thousands), though 

 the females are very similar, as in all the allied species. I 

 have seen Dr. Lucas's types. 



Bondia nigella^ Newm. It is asserted, on the strength of 

 the examination of one specimen, that veins three and four 

 of the hind wings are from a point, and not remote, as stated 

 by me. 1 have again examined the six specimens which I 

 possess, and find tliat in all the veins are remote, as I origi- 

 nally stated, though to a variable degree ; hence, while Mr. 

 Rosenstock's observation may be quite correct, it fails to 

 prove that mine was incorrect ; the just inference is either 

 that the one specimen was exceptional, or that the species 

 varies more than was at first observed. 



Tinea Jraudulens, Ros. This specific name must positively 

 be written Jraudulenta^ the form adopted being a frightful 



