146 C. R. Osten Sachen: 



The venation shows a slight aberration: the last of the veins issuing 

 frorn the diagonal vein appears double at its proximal half, so that a 

 supplernentary closed ccllnle is thus formed. Individual aberrations 

 of this kind are not rare at all aniong Nemestrinidae, and cannot 

 be considered as of mucli weight as characters. In the present case 

 the iniportance of the aberration appears to rae still more reduced 

 by the fact, that the venation of both wings is not quite the same, 

 as the adventitions cell of oiie wing is ent in two by a small cross- 

 vein, and its apex is connected with the wingmargin by another 

 crossvein, vvhile in the other wing thesp two crossveins are wanting." 



It is the abnormal wing of the Andalusian specimen, „the margin 

 of which is reached by two crossveins," that Dr. Wandolleck has 

 figured in the Wien, E. Z. 1897, p. 215. But, instead of giving it 

 for what it represents: „the aberrant wing of the Andalusian female 

 specimen in the Berlin Museum," Dr. W.. erroneously, wrote under 

 the figure „Wing of Sym.ninius costatus Lw. Q (enlarged)"! Tlie 

 future Student will naturally compare this figure with the original 

 figure of S. costatus cf (Berl. E. Z. 1858, p. 27) and will be puzzled 

 by the very great difference in their venation! About the other 

 wing of the same Andalusian specimen, Loew says: „In the other 

 wing these two crossveins are wanting"; that wing, for this reason, 

 must have looked like Loew's fig. 27, because in that figure, there 

 is no crossvein at all all along the bind margin from the anal 

 cell to the apex. 



The figure which Verrall sent me of the aberrant, or monstrous, 

 wing of Bigot's specimen, looks very much like WandoUeck's figure 

 of the aberrant wing of the Andalusian specimen. The principal 

 difference is unimportant, and consists in the absence of one of the 

 crossveins, reaching the margin (the one that is n aar er the apex 

 of the wing), so that it looks as if what Loew calls the diagonal 

 vein had been prolonged to the margin (which is not the case in 

 Loew's fig. 27). That the wings of Bigot's specimen disagree in 

 their venation, just like those of the Andalusian specimen, I gather 

 from what Verrall (in litt.) says about the other wing: „It is broken 

 near the end, but enough is left to show that the double isolated 

 cell did not exist, and. was, in that (figured) wing, a monstrosity." 

 Thus we have a very remarkable agreement in the venation between 

 Bigot's specimen (Southern Europe?) and the Andalusian specimen 

 of the Berlin Museum. This agreement is found. not only in the 

 part of the wing where the monstrosity occurs (the vicinity of the 

 end of the diagonal vein), but it also appears in what would seem 

 a mere casualty, the disparity of the two wings in both specimens! 



