METANASTRIINiE. 121 



appear, superficially, to be quite out of place in any of the tribes 

 at present denned. Not only is this so, but our other Eutrichid 

 subfamilies (anted, pp. in — 112) contain many, at present, un- 

 collated tribal divisions beyond those that we have indicated, 

 whilst it is quite possible that other subfamilies, fully equal in 

 value to those already suggested, will have to be created. 

 At first sight the Macrothylaciids appear to have much in 

 common with the Malacosomas and Pachygastriids, and yet, in reality, 

 they are very distinct from both. The eggs of the typical species 

 of the tribe — Macrothylacia rubi — are not unlike those ol Lasiocampa, 

 yet show a distinct resemblance to the Eutrichid egg, which is not 

 noticeable in Lasiocampa, whilst Bacot also notes that the egg of M. 

 rubi shows a distinct relationship with those of theEutrichids (potatoria, 

 quercifolia, &c), both as regards colour and pattern {in litt.). On the 

 other hand, the mode of egg-laying usually adopted roughly resembles 

 the more thorough and artistic work of Malacosoma. The Macrothy- 

 laciid cocoon, however, is quite sui generis, and reminds one rather of 

 those of some Eutrichids, being quite unlike those of the Pachygastriids 

 and Malacosomas. The imagines, also, have the Lasiocampid 

 habit, the males flying swiftly by day, assembling readily to newly- 

 emerged females, the latter egg-laying after dusk. Hiibner, in the 

 Verzeichniss, p. 186, unites (see, anted, vol. ii., p. 450) rubi with hyrtaca, 

 Cram., and aconyta, Cram., in his coitus Metanastriae, hence the 

 subfamily name. In 1866, Pambur separated rubi under the generic 

 name we use in this work, leaving hyrtaca and aconyta as possible 

 types of Hiibner's genus. Moore, in 1883 (Lep. Ceylon, p. 147), 

 declared hyrtaca * to be the type of Metanastria, thus leaving aconyta, 

 as a possible type of any later genus should it be found not to 

 be congeneric. Aurivillius considers the two species, included by 

 Hiibner in Metanastria with rubi, as nearly related thereto, a con- 

 clusion with which one must agree, in the broad sense. The actual 

 limits of the tribe Macrothylaciidi have yet, however, to be worked 

 out. In the British Museum collection, as we have already stated, 

 Macrothylacia, Rbr., is included in Metanastria, Hb., but the latter genus 

 is there used in such a comprehensive manner that it allows almost the 

 whole subfamily Metanastriinae with its many tribal divisions, each con- 

 taining many more or less closely allied genera to be included. The 

 want of information as to the structural peculiarities presented by 

 the early stages of most of the species prevents one from being 

 able to determine, in more than a tentative manner, what these 

 relations really are. The only species in the collection whose 

 imagines bear any really close resemblance to Macrothylacia rubi 

 is that labelled Metanastria psidii, Salle, but the relationship f of these 

 species is not at all clear, and one suspects that the similarity is 

 due rather to convergence than to any real community of descent, 

 a suspicion borne out by the localities of the respective species, 

 rubi being a Palaearctic and psidii a Guatemala - Mexican species. 

 There is a broad similarity in the colour of the wings, the character 



* The alliance between rubi and hyrtaca is such that the genus or tribe 

 containing hyrtaca must be included in the same subfamily as that containing rubi 

 (Bacot). Kirby places {Cat., pp. 814-815) hyrtaca and aconyta next each other in his 

 heterogeneous genus Dendrolimus. 



t Certainly psidii is not congeneric with rubi, and equally certain it does not 

 belong to the genus Metanastria (sens, restr.), which has hyrtaca for type. 



