Crinodes Sommeri and Tarsolepis remicauda. 275 



Generic differences. 



Crinodes So7nmeri, Hiibuer. 



1. Male antennse feebly pectina- 

 ted, as"' in the other species of Cri- 

 nodes. 



2. Palpi long, slender, projecting 

 considerably beyond the head. 



3. No abdominal tufts. 



4. Body slender; abdomen ap- 

 parently spinous, as in Checupa 

 (Hadenidie), P. Z. S. 1867, pi. vi. 

 fig- 5. 



Tarsolepis remicauda, Butler. 



1. Male antennae bearing about 

 forty-three well-developed pectina- 

 tions. 



2. Palpi short, robust, scarcely 

 projecting beyond the head. 



o. Two long tufts of carmine 

 hairs at base of abdomen, beneath 

 wings. 



4. Body very robust, almost 

 clumsy ; abdomen not spinous. 



8])ecific differences. 



1. Pale costal band of front wings 

 restricted to centre of costa. 



2. Pale basal patches represented 

 only by usual elongation of basal 

 scales. 



3. Inner margin of front wings 

 waved as in the allied C. fulguri- 

 fera. 



4. Hind wings comparatively 

 short and rounded, with well- 

 defined central black spot and three 

 distinct continuous marginal lines. 



5. Underside of wings dark, all 

 the markings sharply defined. 



6. Transverse band of frontwings 

 strongly angulated, so as almost to 

 touch discoidal cell. 



7. Fringe of all the wings long. 



1. Pale costal band continuous 

 from base to apex. 



2. Two distinct pale 

 patches. 



basal 



3. Inner margin of front wings 

 slightly convex, not waved. 



4. Hind wings comparatively 

 long and ovate, with ill-defined cen- 

 tral spot ; central marginal line 

 converted into spots, none of the 

 lines continued round margin. 



5. Underside of wings pale, all 

 the markings ill-defined. 



6. Transverse band of front wings 

 scarcely waved, nearly parallel to 

 outer margin. 



7. Fringe of all the wings short. 



The conclusion that I arrive at from the above comparison 

 is that ray insect is not identical either genericallj or specifically 

 with Hiibner's. It certainly is not a Crinodes ; for it does not 

 agree generically with the type, G. Beschii] and inasmuch as 

 all the members of tlie genus Crinodes^ so far as we know them, 

 are from the New World, it is not at all improbable that the 

 example from Rio Janeiro in Mr. Fry's collection may be the 

 true C. Sommeri^ and the Javan species a totally different 

 insect, belonging to an allied genus, and on that account some- 

 what similar to it in pattern and coloration. 



I therefore feel myself fully justified in retaining the 

 generic and specific names Tarsolepis remicauda for Mr, 

 Cornthwaite's insect ; and I should recommend that this name 

 be also attached to the Javan specimens examined by Herr 

 Ritsema. 



