482 BBITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



p. 41(1869); Guenee, "Lep. Eure-et-Loir," p. 80(1875*); Buckl., "Larvae, etc.," 

 iii., pi. xlix., fig. 2 (1889) ; Auriv., " Nord. Fjar.," p. 61 (1889); "Iris," vii., pp. 

 140, 142 (1894); Kirby, "Cat.," p. 837 (1892); Barr., "Brit. Lep.," iii., p. 5 (1896); 

 Tutt, "Brit. Moths," p. 59 (1896) ; " Proc. Sth. Lond. Ent. Soc," pp. 1-11 (1898) ; 

 Dyar, " Can. Ent.," xxx., pp. 4-5 (1898). Bombyx, Linn., " Sys. Nat.," 10th ed., 

 p. 502 (1758); 12th ed., p. 823 (1767); "Faun. Suec," p. 299 (1761) ; Fab., " Sp. 

 Ins.," p. 194 (1781) ; " Mant.," ii., p. 126 (1787); " Ent. Syst.," iii., p. 460 (1793) ; 

 Schiff., " Sys. Verz.,"p. 58 (1776) ; Esp., " Schmett. Eur.," iii., pt. l,p. 233 (1785) ; 

 Bork., " Sys. Besch.," hi., p. 127 (1790) ; " Rhein. Mag.," i., p. 367 (1793) ; Donov., 

 " Nat. Hist. Brit. Ins.," iv., p. 23 (1795) ; Hb., " Eur. Schmett.," iii., p. 141 

 (? 1800) ; Haw., " Lep. Brit.," i., p. 105 (1803) ; Godt., "Hist. Nat.," iv., p. 122 (1822) ; 

 Bdv., "Gen. et Ind.," p. 70 (1840) ; Frr., "Neu. Beit.," vi., p. 14 (1846) ; Boh., 

 "Vet. Ak. Handl.," 1848, p. 133 (1848); Snell., "De Ylind.," p. 186 (1867); Nolek., 

 " Lep. Fn. Estl.," p. 126 (1868) ; Staud., "Cat.," p. 67 (1871) ; Curo, "Bull. Soc. 

 Ent. Ital.," viii., p. 148 (1876) ; Frey, " Lep. der Schweiz," p. 94 (1880) ; Lampa, " Ent. 

 Tids.," vi., p. 41 (1885) ; Riihl, " Soc. Ent.," v., v. 170 (1891) ; Carad., " Iris," viii., 

 p. 90 (1895) ; Beutti, "Lep. Bad.," 2nd ed., p. 56 (1898). Noctua, Linn., "Fauna 

 Suec," 2nd ed., p. 309 (1761). Phalaena, Fuessly, " Mag. Ent.," ii., p. 11 (1779); Betz., 

 " Gen. Spec. Ins.," p. 36 (1783). Gastropacha, Ochs., " Die Schmett.," iii., p. 278 (1810); 

 H.-Sch., " Sys. Bearb.," ii., pp. 101, 105 (1847) ; Hein., " Schmett. Deutsch.," i., pp. 

 201, 207 (1859). Lasiocampa, Germ., " Prod. Sist. Bomb.," p. 49 (1811) ; Meig., " Eur. 

 Schmett.," ii., p. 203 (1830). Diaphone, Hb., " Verz.," p. 188 (?1822). Clisiocampa, 

 Curt., " Brit. Ent.," expl. pi. 229 (1828) ; " Guide," p. 142 (1829). Eriogaster, 

 Bang-Haas, "Nat. Tids.," (3), ix., p. 411 (1874); Meyr., "Handbook," p. 322 

 (1895). Poecilocavrpa, Strom, "Damn. Somm.," p. 82 (1891). Achnocampa, Grote, 

 "Illus. Zeits. fur Ent.," hi., p. 71 (1898); Dyar, "Ent. Bee," xi., p. 141 (1899). 



Stephens' diagnosis of the genus (lllus. Haust., ii., p. 43) reads as 

 follows : 



Trichiura, mihi. Palpi very minute, concealed by elongate hairs, triarticulate ; 

 basal joint as long as the second, and stouter ; terminal joint minute, ovate ; 

 maxillae obsolete ; antennae straight, short, bipectinated in the males, serrated in 

 the females ; head moderate, densely pilose, distinctly visible from above ; thorax 

 stout, pilose ; abdomen slender, with an elongate sub-bifid tuft at the apex in the 

 males, very robust in the females, with a dense woolly mass at the tip ; wings 

 rounded at the apex, not reversed during repose, abbreviated in both sexes; legs 

 short, stout, densely clothed with elongate hairs to the claws. Larva cylindrical, 

 hairy, solitary. Pupa stout, enclosed in an ovate rigid cocoon. 



Stephens placed only crataegi in Trichiura. . It, therefore, becomes 

 the type of the genus. Hiibner was the first author to separate crataegi 

 and populi from the allied Lachneids, but united them strangely 

 enough in the genus Diaphone with the quite extraneous form, syhiana, 

 Stoll, from S. Africa, which has since been named the type of the 

 latter genus. Aurivillius notes that as all authors since Stephens 

 have applied to crataegi Stephens' generic name Trichiura, it would be 

 quite purposeless to change the name. Grote (lllus. Zeits. fur 

 Entomologie, hi., p. 71) rejects the name as being the same as that of 

 the Arctiid genus Trichura, Hb., and includes crataegi in the genus 

 Achnocampa, Eambur, with ilicis ; but crataegi is not congeneric with 

 ilicis, the neuration is different, and the female is without the charac- 

 teristic anal tuft. To us the syllabic difference between Trichiura and 

 Trichura appears to be quite sufficient to justify its retention. Stephens 

 notes that " Trichiura offers many distinctions which separate it from 

 Clisiocampa (with which it had hitherto been united), and its habits 

 are totally dissimilar. The ? Trichiura lays her eggs in irregular 

 longitudinal rows on the bark of trees, covering them with down 

 from the apex of her abdomen. Clisiocampa, on the other hand, 

 deposits them in a solid compact ring, round a slender twig, without 



* This work is incorrectly dated 1867 and is so quoted by Aurivillius vide., Zool. 

 Record, 1875. 



