Mar., 1908.] Grossreck: New GeometridjE. L'l 



Note on the Genus Gymnocelis, Mad. 



The genus Gymnocelis as defined by Dr. Hulst is distinguished 

 from Eupithecia (= Tephroclystia) chiefly by the absence of the upper 

 pair of spurs on the hind tibiae, but also by the possession of a conic 

 tuft of scales on the front. The invalidity of this genus suggested 

 itself to me at the time I attempted to place generically the species I 

 described as Gymnocelis remorata. Nine of the eleven females of that 

 species then in hand each possessed a minute pair of upper spurs as 

 well as the fully developed terminal ones. This discovery led to an 

 examination of all the specimens of Gymnocelis accessible to me, 

 which fortunately included types of three of the four described species, 

 and a representative of the fourth. The result was as follows : 



G. despetata Hulst. The male type had two pair of spurs, the 

 upper pair minute. 



G. minuta Hulst. The two male types had each but a single pair 

 of spurs. A third example in my own collection agreed with this. 



G. inferior Hulst. The single type was in poor condition, being 

 covered with shreds of fungi, and neither of the hind legs were present. 



G. gypsata Grote. The single male examined had two pair of 

 spurs, the upper pair very small. 



G. remorata. Gross. Seven males and two females had one pair 

 of spurs ; nine females had two pair, the upper ones rudimentary. 



Thus it appeared, that as far as this character was concerned the 

 genus must fall in with Eupithecia. The next character, the conic 

 frontal tuft, was then examined and it was found that gypsata and 

 desperata had it well developed, as did also remorata: in minuta, 

 however, the only species that agreed with Hulst's generic diagnosis 

 in that it had but a single pairs of spurs, the front was not protuberant 

 in the least ! Much could not be seen of this structure in inferior, but 

 it appeared to be undeveloped. It seemed, therefore, inevitable that 

 the genus must fall, but before casting it into synonymy I examined 

 some two hundred specimens of the genus Eupithecia representing 

 upwards of fifty species. The result was that the peculiar tuft was 

 found well developed in only one species, E. raveocostaliata Pack., 

 and to a lesser extent in zygadeniata, longidens, edna and a few others, 

 and that the spurs were full-sized or nearly so in every species exam- 

 ined. So, while it appears that the frontal tuft can hardly be used as 

 a generic character in this case, the material reduction in size of the 

 upper posterior tibial spurs or their total absence might be, and I have 



