le 
—_ 
14. The palpi in this genus, Lederer says exceed the front: in the 
species I have seen, this is not the case. I have not seen all our species, 
but so far as my observations extend, the genus is correctly placed in the 
present sub-division. 
15. Charaara Wlk., seems to be identical with Raphia: the prima- 
ries are less rounded and the thoracic vestiture is looser and more diver- 
gent, otherwise there seems to be no difference: I note however that the 
insects I have seen labelled Charadra do not appear to be congeneric, so 
that Iam a little in doubt as to whether I really know the genus: Walk- 
ers description of the genus such as it is does not aid me. 
16. Mr. Grote in his description of these genera does not say any- 
thing about the eyes or tibia, so that I am not sure that they belong here. 
164. Sylectra Hb. Guenee’s genera where I have not myself seen 
them I am not very certain about, as his generic descriptions are very su- 
perficial. 
17. Differs in several respects from /Zyfenxa though very closely allied 
to it, and perhaps on a comparison with all the exotic species it will be 
found a bad genus. 
18. Chytohita Grt. I can find nothing whatever to authorize this ge- 
nus. Philometra serraticornis, Grt., also belongs to Herminia if the spec- 
imen from Mr, Graef’s collection is correctly determined: it is not con- 
generic with the P. /ongilabris of the same collection. 
19. I am inclined to believe that Aenza and Herminia are identical. 
I have not however examined the neuration and would not care to unite 
them at present. 
20. Iam not quite sure that this genus belongs here, for Mr. Grote 
does not describe the palpi. From its general characters I should sus- 
pect it to be Herminia. ‘This however is a mere suspicion, based on an 
imperfect description. 
21. Dr. Harvey in his description of this genus, says nothing of 
either the eyes or tibia: I presume that the former are naked and that the 
latter are unarmed, as the converse of this would probably have been sta- 
ted. Comparing descriptions, it strikes me that there is no great differ- 
ence between the two last mentioned genera, and they may be identical: 
unfortunately I know neither of them. 
22. Litognatha Grt., is identical with this genus: the absence of the 
brush on the anterior tibia of the (| and the thickened (j' antenne, are 
certainly not generic distinctions and I can find nothing having a higher 
value to separate them. 
