226 



of some of our genera. Tlie following list indicates the 

 changes in name now introduced: — Euchoeca, Hb., becomes 

 (1) Cretheis, Meyr. ; (2) Euchoeca, Hb. Asthena, Hb., 

 becomes (1) Poecilasthena, Warr. ; (2) Minoa, Treit. 

 Scordylia, Gn., becomes Chaetolopha, Warr. Eucymatogty 

 Hb., Sect. 1, 2, and 3, become Horisme^ Hb. ; Eucymatoge^ 

 Hb. ; Eccymatoge, Prout. ELydriotnena, Hb., Sect. 1, and 

 Sect. 2 and 3 together become Euphyia, Hb., and Cidaria^ 

 Treit. Xanthorhoe, Sect. 1 and 2, become Xanthorho'6, Hb., 

 and Larentia, Treit. 



The family is a large one; the numerous genera are closely 

 allied ; and their classification is difficult. It is a group which 

 permits of no primary division; all the characters employed 

 for generic distinction are of secondary value. For instance, 

 the smooth face characteristic of the Asthena group is found 

 also in Sauris, which resembles that group in no other char- 

 acter, and had, I believe, a quite different origin. Again 

 the possession of a single or double areole, though valuable, 

 is a secondary character, which has been independently 

 developed in many instances. By its use we may separate 

 many pairs of genera, which are as closely or more closely 

 allied to each other than to anything else. Such pairs are : — 

 Euchoeca — Minoa, Tephroclystis — Mnesiloha, Chaetolofha — 

 Cidaria, Epirrho'e (Europe) — Euphyia, Asaphodes (New Zea- 

 land) — Xanthorhoe, Dasysternica — Dasyuris. Although the 

 character is a valuable one, and indeed indispensable, it is 

 not certain that the generic distinctions thereby made will 

 always be natural; for no reason can be given why this 

 modification, unaccompanied by any other, may not have 

 arisen independently in different unrelated species of the 

 same genus. In two other generic characters, which I con- 

 sider valid, even more difficulty presents itself. Of these the 

 first is the pectination of the male antennae. This also is a 

 secondary character, and separates groups otherwise similar 

 or identical in structure, Xanthorhoe from Euphyia, Larentia 

 from Cidaria, Asaphodes from Epirt'hoe, Notoreas from 

 Dasyuris, Venusia from Euchoeca. In addition to this weak- 

 ness there are also intermediate conditions difficult to classify. 

 For instance, Meyrick places the European vittata in 

 Xanthorhoe, and this may be its natural position, but the male 

 antennae cannot be termed pectinate. This difficulty might be 

 got over by broadening the definition of the genus, but the 

 Australian ptrcrassata and vacuaria (the latter also placed- 

 by Meyrick in Xanthorhoe) have the same antennal struc- 

 ture, and closely similar is that of strumosata, while all three 

 specios appear to fall more naturally under Euphyia. These 

 difficulties occur, however, seldom, and greater difficulties in 



