1883.] mr. a. g. butler on indian lepidoptera. 155 



bombyces. 

 37. Syntomis cyssea. 



Sphinx cysseus, Cramer, Pap. Exot. iv, pi. 355, B (1782). 



Mhow, February 1882. 



" Great numbers in the poppy-fields here in January and Feb- 

 ruary ; I took two or three here also in the flowers of the male neem 

 tree; have also some from Soluu and Umballa." — C. S. 



Micros emyra, nov. gen. 



Aspect of a small Leucania, but more nearly allied to Semyra '. 

 The neuration somewhat siuiilar, but the cell of primaries longer 

 and the veins branching and consequently shorter ; secondaries 

 with the cell short, the subcostals branching (as in Semyra) from a 

 short footstalk, but the second and third median branches (unlike 

 those of Semyra) emitted from a very long footstalk similarly to 

 those of Qionistis (see Trans. Eat. Soc. 1877, pi. viii. fig. IS). 

 Thorax clothed with long woolly hair-scales ; palpi rather small, not 

 extending beyond the front of the head ; antennse of the male ciliated 

 on both sides, rather short, tapering ; legs thick, especially in the 

 male, the anterior and middle pairs short ; abdomen long and 

 scantily scaled. 



38. MiCROSEMYRA PALLIDA, Sp. n. 



Primaries creamy whitish, with a discal series of linear black dots 

 incurved from below the third median branch ; fringe traversed by 

 two indistinct greyish lines ; secondaries shining snow-white ; thorax 

 cream-coloured ; abdomen testaceous, sprinkled with snow-white 

 scales : under surface pure white ; primaries of the male streaked 

 longitudinally with grey. Expanse of wings 22 mm. 



Mhow, October 1881. 



" Scarce here, and only observed in October." — C. S. 



39. Pharetra consanguis. 



Acronycta consanguis, Butler, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, 

 vol. iv. p. 358, n. 24 (1879). 



Kasauli, in September. 



40. Deiopeia pulchella. 



Tinea pulchella, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. i. 2, p. 884 (1766). 



Mhow, September 1881 and February 1882; Hubb river, Nov. 

 1879. 



Colonel Swinhoe sends a long note respecting this species, in 

 which he suggests that it should be distinguished rather by the 

 markings of the secondaries than of the primaries. He objects that 

 my D. thyter is distinguished by the markings of the primaries, 

 and that he can find in India no species to which my description 

 " primaries with the scarlet spots so pale as to be scarcely visible, 

 * I refer this genus to the ArctiidcB. 



