Sir G. F. Hanipson on new Pyralida3. 37;i 



fotisj but — taken tog(>tlicr willi tlio fact that also externally, 

 a|)ait f'loni the si/e of the ears, there is no difference worth 

 inenti(iniii<^ between viicrolis and megalotis (for even the 

 colour of the single skin of microtis^ on whicli Miller laid 

 some stress in his description, is, according to Lyon, un- 

 reliable) — it certainly looks rather susj)icioug. 



My ar<runipiit is, briefly summed up, this : — As in two 

 British Museum sj)ecimens of MicronTjcteris hirsuta 

 (OS. 10. *d. l.'-l-i), j)reserved in alcohol, the ears, for some 

 reason or other, have shrunk far below their natural size 

 {\\\y paper, /. s. c.) ; as in a series of Irish PipistreUus 

 p/pistrellus, preserved in alcohol, recently shown to me, 

 the ears, for some reason or other, have shrunk to little more 

 than half their natural size; so, the only specimen known of 

 MicroHijcteris microtis^ which differs from .1/. megdlutis in no 

 essential external character but its curiously small ears, and 

 the skull and dentition of which are indistinguisiiabie from 

 those of M. megalutis, may, very likely, be an example of 

 this latter species with much shrunk ears. Whether my 

 assumption is right or wrong cannot, I believe, be definitely 

 proved, until further material is forthcoming from the type 

 locality of M. microtis. If it is wrong, the case will stand as 

 follows : the genus Mlcronycteris, as restricted by me, 

 numbers four species; three of these (J/, rnegafotis, viinuta, 

 hirsuta) have the ears proportionately quite of the same size, 

 but differ in many important cranial, dental, and external 

 characters ; the fourth species {M. microtis^ has extra- 

 ordinarily small ears, but is otherwise practically iiidistin- 

 yuishahlsj cranially, dentally^ and externally, from M. meqa- 

 lutisl All is possible, but strange as the characters of this 

 latter " species " look to me, I still think it safer, for the 

 present, to leave the question as to its validity open to 

 doubt. — Knud Andersen.] 



LV. — Descriptions of new Pyralidce of the Subfamilies 

 Hydrocamoinse and Scoparianse. By Sir George F. 

 Hampsox, Bart., B.A., F.Z.S., &c. 



The following paper is supplementary to my classification o£ 

 these two subfamilies in the Trans. Eut. Soc. Lond. 1897, 

 pp. 127-240, and the numbers prefixed to the species indicate 

 their position in the genera there dealt with. 



