676 DR. T. A. CHAPMAN ON NEW [June 16, 



Figs. 11-14. Ascandra falcata. 



Fig. 11, PL XXXIV. Central portion of a triradiate. X 1000. 



12, PL XXXIV. A monaxon. X 250. 



13, PL XXXVII. Distal extremity of a monaxon. X 500. 



14, PL XXXVII. Proximal extremitj' of a monaxon. X 



Figs. 15-17. Clathrina clathrus. 



Fig. 15, PL XXXVI. The extremities of two triradiates and a broken ray of a 

 third. X 1000. 



16, PL XXXIV. The extremity of a triradiate. X 1000. 



17, PL XXXVII. The central part of a triradiate. X 1000. 



Figs. 18, 19. Leiteandra aspera. 



Fig. 18, PL XXXVII. A triradiate showing the double-contoui-ed filaments. X 250. 

 19, PL XXXVI. A quadriradiate. X 500. 



Figs. 20, 21. Sycon ciUatum. 



Fig. 20, PL XXXVI. A triradiate. X 500. 



21, PL XXXVI. The same triradiate at a slightly lower focus. X 500. 



Figs. 22, 23. Seteropegma nodus-gordii. 



Fig. 22, PL XXXIV. A small triradiate (one ray broken). X 1000. 



23, PL XXXVI. A small sagittal triradiate, showing the filaments ; on the 

 left the filament has become displaced. X 1000. 



Fig. 24, PL XXXVII. Photograph of the gastral surface of the body-wall of 

 Clathrina contor'ta, stained with picro-nigrosin, the collar-cells 

 brushed off ; showing the network left between the collar-cells, 

 porocytes, and gastral rajs. Owing to this network not being exactly 

 in one plane, it is not seen all over the photograph. X 1000. 



4. Two New Grenera (and a New Species) of Indian 

 Lycffinids. By T. A. Chapman, M.D., F.Z.S. 



[Received May 14, 1908.] 



(Plate XXXVIII*) 



In trying to gain some knowledge of the genus Cyaniris by 

 examining the ancillary appendages, I met with much trouble 

 over Cyaniris chennellii de Nicev. I obtained specimens from 

 various sources, and informed various j)eople that they had a Zizera 

 or something thereabouts, and not a Cyaniris. Herein I was 

 right, but so were they, their insect being chennellii de Nicev. I 

 stuck to my gtms unnecessarily, lai-gely because Col. Bingham 

 found in his collection a specimen that was certainly not a Zizera 

 but probably a Cyaniris, and which he had compared with the 

 type of chennellii and found to agree. I took it therefore that 

 this was chennellii, but could come across no other specimen. 

 I also, of course, assumed de Niceville to know what was and what 

 was not a Cyaniris, and that he would not call a Zizera-like species 

 a Cyaniris. It turns out, however, that this was precisely what 

 he did do, and in doing which, succeeding authorities appear to have 



* For explanation of the Plate see p. 678. 



