156 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



Kirby, "Eur. Butts, and Moths," p. 129 (1880); Lampa, "Ent. Tids.," p. 42 

 (1885) ; Jordan, "Schmett. N.-W. Deutsch.," p. 96 (1886) ; Auriw, " Nord. Fjar.," 

 p. 64 (1889); Riihl, "Soc. Ent.," v., p. 178 (1891); Carad., "Iris," viii., p. 93 

 (1895); Reutti, "Lep. Bad.," 2nd ed., p. 58 (1898). Bombix, Latr., "Hist. 

 Nat.," xiv., p. 178 (1805). Bombyx (-Lasiocampa), Latr., "Gen. Crust, et Ins.," 

 iv., p. 219 (1809). Gastropacha, Ochs., "Die Schmett.," hi., p. 256 (1810) ; Evers., 

 "Faun. Volg. Ural.," p. 153 (1844); H.-Sch., '■ Sys. Bearb.," h., p. 104 (1846); 

 Heyd., " Lep. Eur. Cat. Meth.," ed. 3, p. 26 (1851); Speyer, " Geog. Verb.," i., 

 p. 407 (1858); ii., p. 287 (1862); Bang-Haas, "Nat. Tids.," (3), ix., p. 411 

 (1874). Odonestis, Germ., "Bomb. Spec," p. 49 (1812) ; 'Curt., " Brit. Ent.," 

 expl. pi. vii (1824); Stphs., "111. Haust.," ii., p. 51 (1828); "List. Br. An. 

 Br. Mus.," p. 48 (1850); Wood, "Ind. Ent.," p. 23, fig. 52 (1839); Bdv., 

 "Gen. et Ind. Meth.," p. 71 (1840); Humph, and Westd., "Br. Moths," p. 

 56 (? 1843); Dup., "Cat. Meth.," p. 74 (1844); Walk., "Cat. Lep. B. M.," 

 vi., p. 1409 (1855) ; Sta., "Man.," i., p. 157 (1857); Ramb., "Cat. Lep. And.," 

 p. 348 (i860) ; Newm., " Brit. Moths,'' p. 45 (1869); Wallgrn., " Skand. Het.," 

 ii., pp. 105, 106 (1869); Oberth., "Etudes," v., p. 38 (1880); Buck., "Lame," 

 hi., p. 60 (1889); Meyr., "Handbook," p. 323 (1895); Tutt, "Brit. Moths," 

 p. 60 (1896); Barr., "Lep. Brit.," hi., p. 37, pi. xciv (1896). Odonesis, Samou., 

 "Ent. Compend.," p. 247 (1819) ; Kirby and Spence, " Introd. Ent.," hi., pp. 

 175, 177, 221 (1826). Euthrix, Meig., "Eur. Schmett.," ii., p. 195 (1830) ; Grote, 

 "Illus. Zeits. fur Ent.," hi., p. 71 (1898). Bombyx {-Odonestis), Led., " Verh. 

 z.-b. Wien," ii., Abh., p. 75 (1853). Cosmotricha, H.-Sch., " Ausser. Schmett.," 

 p. 9 (1856). Gastropacha {-Odonestis), Hein., " Schmett. Deutsch.," p. 204 (1859). 

 Philudoria, Kirby, " Cat. Lep.," p. 820 (1892). Philhydoria, Kirby, "Handbook 

 Lep.," iv., pp. 114-115 (1897). 



The type of Cosmotriche is potatoria. This species was included 

 in Schrank's genus Lasiocampa (Fauna Boica, ii., Abth. 2., pp. 

 153-155), it was also one of the species included in Latreille's 

 Lasiocampa, but was expressly excluded by Germar (Sys. Gloss. 

 Prod., ii., p. 49) from Lasiocampa, and placed with a mark of 

 doubt in Odonestis, a genus erected for pruni, Germar noting con- 

 cerning potatoria " potius ad sequens (Gastropacha, Ochs.) referenda^' 

 so that it is quite out of the question to consider this species as 

 a possible type of Odonestis, to the exclusion of pruni, as has 

 already been done by some authors. Germars action, therefore, 

 appears to have still left potatoria a possible type of Lasiocampa, 

 but Htibner separated it from the species with which it had been 

 previously allied, and included it in Coitus 1 ( ' Cosmotrichac) of his 

 Family A of the Eutrichid stirps, with lobulina and htnigcra. He 

 diagnoses the Coitus as follows : 



Cosmotrichae : Eorewings with white central markings and oblique dark 

 stripes — Cosmotriche potatoria, C. lobulina, C. lunigera. 



As we have already pointed out (autea, vol. ii., p. 451), lobulina and 

 lunigera (really the same species) are not permissible types of this 

 genus, not having " oblique dark stripes," and thus disagreeing with 

 the generic diagnosis. Aurivillius says (Lis, vii., p. 102) that "it is much 

 to be regretted that none of the authors who have hitherto separated 

 this genus from the rest has taken the trouble to read Germar's 

 original description, Germar including only pruni with certainty in 

 his genus Odonestis and adding '? potatoria \ so that it is impossible 

 to use Odonestis for any genus in which pruni is not included. 

 Since, in my opinion, potatoria and pruni are not at all related, 

 another generic name must be applied to potatoria. Hiibner erected 

 for potatoria and lunigera the genus Cosmotriche; these two species 

 are, indeed, more nearly related than potatoria and pruni, but still 

 generically distinct, and since Hiibner's description fits potatoria 

 exactly, but lunigera only in part, and Rambur, in 1 866, erected 



