498 BBITISH LEPIDOPTEBA. 



Friesland, Gelderland, North Brabant, &c. (Snellen), Breda (Heylaerts). 

 Boujiania : rare — Grnmazesti, Slanic (Caradja). Bussia : Baltic Provinces 

 (Sintenis), Moscow dist. (Albrecht), Wolmar (Lutzau), St. Petersburg (Erschoff), 

 Transcaucasia, rare — Laghodekhi (Romanoff), Abbastouman (Haberhauer), Livonia, 

 Russian Lapland (Teich). Scandinavia : not rare (Aurivillius), Smoland, E. 

 Gothland, SkSfde, Hudiksvall, Calix, &c. (Wallengren), Tromso, Sydvaranger 

 (Schneider), Christiania, rare, Driodalen (Siebke), Lapland — Lycksele (Zetter- 

 stedt), Dovrefjeld, Norwegian Arctic region (Schoyen). Spain: Barcelona, rare 

 (Cuni y Martorell), Catalonia (Martorell y Peiia), Andalusia (Staudinger), Bilbao 

 (Seebold). Switzerland : widely distributed in plains and hilly districts — Cantons 

 Basle, Berne, Aargau, St. Gallen (Frey), Grisons — Chur, rare (Killias), Zurich dist. 

 — Frichtenhausen, Fallanden (Riihl), Upper Engadine (Frey). Turkey : north- 

 east part of country (Staudinger), Slivno (Lederer). 



Subfam. : Lachnein^:. 

 Tribe : Lachneidi. 

 The Lachneinae (Lachneides of Hubner's Tentamen, p. 1) form the 

 third coitus of Hubner's Piyiacae (Verz., p. 185), which he terms 

 Dasysomata, Dasysoma being certainly a synonym of Lachneis. It 

 contains two very distinct, moderately closely allied genera — Lachneis, 

 Hb., and Autosphyla, Ebr. — both of which contain species whose 

 females have a very well-defined, woolly, anal tuft and almost simple 

 antennas, whilst the males have strongly pectinated antenna? and are 

 usually smaller and much more robust in their build than the females. 

 These two genera are maintained by Kirby, and in this we agree, 

 although Aurivillius writes that Autosphyla, Ebr., can only be separated 

 from Lachneis, Hb., " by artificial and insignificant characters," and 

 adds that the whole of the species included by him in one genus — 

 lanestris, catax, rimicola, luteus, neoyena, henkei, acanthaphylli, riickbeili — 

 " appear to form, in all their stages, a very natural and homogeneous 

 unity. Only the ? antenna? are of somewhat different structure in 

 the different species, but this appears to be slender ground on which 

 to found new genera." There seems to be more ground in the early 

 stages for separating the genera than is here suggested, and whilst 

 there can be no doubt about the close relationship between the true 

 Lachneis species — lanestris, catax, rimicola and luteus — on the one 

 hand, and the A utosphyla species — neoyena, acanthaphylli and henkei — on 

 the other, there is a distinct hiatus between the two groups, which is alto- 

 gether lost by including them in the same genus. Autosphyla neoyena 

 is very near indeed in its general appearance to A. acanthophylli, but 

 the latter, when fresh, has a very large anal tuft of loose fluffy wool, 

 which is remarkably shown in one of the two females in the British 

 Museum collection. Both sexes are excellently figured by Komanoff 

 (Mem., ii., pi. xiii., figs. 2a-b) as also is the larva (fig. 2c), which does 

 not at all remind one of Lachneis, and the cocoon (fig. 2d); which is 

 quite like those of the latter genus. Most entomologists before 

 Stephens allied the Lachneids with Onethocampa-'-, and when the 

 latter author isolated lanestris and placed it alone in Erioyaster, he 

 wrote: " Erioyaster maybe known from Poecilocampa and Cnetho- 

 campa, which somewhat resemble it in the texture of their wings, by 

 the stoutness and woolliness of its body, especially of the females, and 

 the brevity of the cilia. The males are further distinguished from 

 those of Poecilocampa by the more slender and acuminated antennae, 



* We have already stated that the true generic name for this genus is Erio- 

 gaster (see, antecl, p. 450). 



