ey 
4. Parthenos and Alofria I think must be united with Cafocala. 
Parthenos differs so far as I can make out, only in the somewhat more cy- 
lindric abdomen and by the apex of the primaries which are very slightly 
pointed: these differences are too slight to authorize the genus, especially 
as many of the species of Ca/ocala have the abdomen considerably more 
cylindric than conic. I am well aware that there is a difference between 
the life history of Parthenos and that of the Ca/ocalas whose early stages are 
known, but so long as genera are based on structural characters peculiar 
to the imago, incongruities will occur. A/o/ria differs from Catocala by . 
the absence of the tuftings and the somewhat heavier abdomen. In the 
smaller species of the latter genus however the tuftings become obsolete 
although as far as I know they are never entirely wanting: the most di- 
vergent Ca/ocala however is so near to AJ/ofrza that it is possible to mis- 
take the one for the other. Both Parthenos and Allotria are readily sep- 
arable from Casocala by color; but color is not always a safe specific, much 
less a generic distinction. 
5. Parallelia Hb., is 1 believe identical with this genus: it differs 
only by the slightly more oblique outer margin of primaries, and the 
longer and more slender terminal joint of palpi: neither of them suffici- 
ent to distinguish them genericaily. I retain Guenee’s genus in prefer- 
ence to Huebner’s, for the reasons already stated. 
6. Cloantha, Bd.=Achnotia, Hb. ; 
7. Embraces Drasterta, Hb. and Li/osea, Grt. Ican find no gener- 
ic difference whatever between Luclidia and Drasteria, while Lifosea differs 
only in the slighter form and rather narrower secondaries: the antennze are 
also more decidedly pectinated, but neither of these points is sufficient 
to separate them generically. 
8. Xanthothrix Neumoegent differs considerably from X. ranuncul in 
the form of the clypeus and in some minor points: they may possibly be 
generically separated hereafter, and if so, X. ranunculi with excavated cy- 
lindrical clypeus must be retained as the type form of the genus. 
g. Stiria, Grt, Stibadium, Grt., and Plagiomimicus, Grt. I do not 
consider generically distinct from Basiodes. All of these genera are based 
on a single species, and taken together thev form a small group, decided- 
ly divergent as far as the ornamentation is concerned, but agreeing so 
closely in structural characters that I cannot persuade myself to regard 
them as distinct. The squamation and form of the thorax and abdomen 
are alike in all: the legs agree, and so far as the palpi are concerned, the 
group is remarkably homogenous: in all they are roughly.and somewhat 
divergently haired, and in all, the terminal joint is obsolete: the outline 
