Genera Tanaccia and Nora. oon 
With regard to 7, pelea, two males so named in the Kaden 
Collection came into the Museum through the liberality of 
F. D. Godman, Esq., F.R.S., and these are barely separable 
from males of 7. palguna. Considering how much misunder- 
standing has existed in the minds of lepidopterists respecting 
T. pulasara and other females of this genus, I think it better 
to accept Dr. Kaden’s identification. 
Herr Friihstorffer’s suggestion that the character of the 
palpus, upon which the genus Tanaecta was based, being 
variable, the similarity of the sexes (as opposed to that of 
other Euthaliine) should be considered the most important 
character for distinguishing Tanaecia, seems to me to be 
hasty, and is certainly not borne out by facts. The third 
joint of the palpus in Tanaecia is always spine-like, and this 
character is only found elsewhere in those genera which have 
recently been separated from Tanaecda, not in other groups 
of Euthaliine. It is true that some species, or the males of 
some species, show a greatly abbreviated spine-like joint, 
whereas others show a long needle-like joint; but this is a 
specific distinction, and in no way affects the value of the 
character as a guide to the genus. On the other hand, if 
similarity of sexes were to be accepted as an indication of a 
Tanaecia, Nora laverna (lavernalis, De Nicév.) would have 
to be placed in Tanaecia; whereas T. orphne, the sexes of 
which are not remarkably similar, would have to be forcibly 
expelled from the genus. As a matter of fact, the sexes of 
Tanaecia are not by any means invariably alike; the males 
are frequently shorter in wing than the females, and the under- 
surface markings differ considerably. 
Now as regards Nora laverna, to which Mr. De Nicéville 
has applied the new name of lavernalis, I was surprised to 
find the following remarkable observation :— As Mr. Butler 
has elected to consider the female of his #. laverna from 
Penang and Malacca as the type of his species (both sexes of 
which are described and figured by Mr. Distant in his ‘ Rho- 
palocera Malayana’), I propose to name the male figured by 
Mr. Butler Huthalia lavernalis, as it is at present unnamed,” 
Even if I had elected to ignore my description of the male 
(which, as a matter of fact, has priority, being first described) 
I could not do so unless it were proved to be synonymous 
with something previously described; this, however, happens 
to be the case with my supposed female from Penang, which 
is undoubtedly the NV. somadeva of Felder, so that it becomes 
still more impossible to ignore the only specimen to which | 
attached a type label. The male figured by Mr. Distant, 
which we have from Malacca, appears to me to be a slight 
