and Tarsolepis remicauda. 447 



Whilst Mr. Butler believes that Hiibner's figure is really a 

 representation of a male insect, as possessing a well-developed 

 anal tuft of radiating scales (this character, however, occurs 

 also in the Javan females, and is therefore without value), I 

 rather believe it to be a female, on account of the feebly pec- 

 tinated antennaa. The anal tuft, as covering entirely the 

 sexual organs, may have been the cause of Hiibner's mistake ; 

 in such cases only the examination of the retinaculum will 

 furnish certainty concerning the sex of the moth. 



The want of the two long tufts of carmine hairs at the base 

 of the abdomen most probably must be ascribed to the sex, 

 such tufts being almost confined (at this moment I do not re- 

 Collect an example of the contrary) to the male insect ; they 

 are often totally hidden, as probably is the case with the male 

 in Mr. Snellen's collection. 



As regards the length of the palpi, I notice that the females 

 I examined agree in this respect with Hiibner's figures, and 

 that Mr. Snellen's specimen ( ^ ) holds the middle between 

 Hiibner's and Butler's. 



No importance can be attached to the size of the abdomen 

 and to its spinous processes as figured by Hiibner, the former 

 depending chiefly upon the sex and the state of desiccation, 

 the latter, formed by some diverging long scales on the sides 

 of the abdomen, occurring also in Mr. Snellen's male. More- 

 over it is incomprehensible to me how Mr. Butler can regard 

 these processes as a generic difference, although nothing of 

 the kind is to be seen in the representation of Crino Bescket, 

 the species which, according to Butler, should be the type of 

 the genus Crtno. 



The specific differences summed up by Butler must certainly 

 be ascribed to a great extent to inaccuracies of the artist. In 

 order to prove this it may be sufficient to notice the inner 

 margin of the front wings in both Hiibner's figures, which is 

 waved only in fig. 1, and also the hind wings of the same 

 figure, which are unlike one another. Moreover Hiibner's 

 figures are coloured too dark, and have almost all the markings 

 (the pale basal patches excepted) defined too sharply, instead 

 of the underside of the wings only, as Mr. Butler states ; as 

 for the latter, this author inclines to the contrary. 



In the specimens I examined, the pale costal band does not 

 quite -extend to the apex and is broader than in Butler's figure, 

 especially at the base of the wings ; the central marginal line 

 of the hind wings is continued round the margin, but, at the 

 upper and underside, converted into spots as in Hiibner's 

 fig. 2 ; the transverse band of the front wings is strongly 

 waved and not nearly parallel to the outer margin, whilst the 

 fringe of all the wings is tolerably long. 



