278 H. STEMPFFER 



uses turn and turn about the morphology of the fore tarsi of the male, the presence 

 of a precostal vein on the hind wing, the arrangement of the small spines on the 

 underside of the male fore tarsi, the relative lengths of the femur and tibia of the hind 

 leg, the wing venation in general, the presence or absence of coremata, and even at 

 times the food of the larvae. On the other hand he seems to attribute only a second- 

 ary degree of importance to the form of the male genitalia. 



I find myself unable to agree with this method, for I believe it essential, in order 

 to achieve a coherent system, to establish a kind of hierarchy — arbitrary perhaps, 

 amongst characters, and to follow this throughout a family, only using characters of 

 secondary importance in a supplementary sense. To me it does not seem reason- 

 able, for example, to attach the same taxonomic importance to the spines on the 

 fore leg as to the genitalia of the male. 



However, so as not unduly to prolong this note, I propose to indicate below only 

 those points upon which I do not find myself in agreement with Clench. 



Page 269 : — Key to the subfamilies of the Liptenidae : 



1 Humeral (precostal) vein present on hind wing ....... 2 



Humeral vein absent ........... 3 



2 Ventral spines of fused male fore tarsus apically in two similar rows, the number, 



angle of insertion and spacing of the spines about the same in each row ; hind leg 



with femur shorter than tibia ....... Pentilinae 



- Ventral spines of fused male fore tarsus in two dissimilar rows, a mesad row of erect, 

 rather closely and evenly spaced spines and an exterior row of sparse, declivent, 

 irregular spaced spines, hind leg with femur subequal to or slightly exceeding tibia 



Durbaniinae (extralimital) 



3 Male fore tarsus fused to a single segment, with two dissimilar rows of spines (about as 



in Durbaninae above) ; hind leg with femur shorter than tibia . . Lipteninae 



Male fore tarsus fully formed, similar to that of the female ; hind leg with femur 



longer than tibia ....... Thestorinae (extralimital) 



I have already explained (p. 268) my reasons for excluding Durbania, and the 

 allied recently erected genera, from the Pentilinae, because their genital armatures 

 are simple and symmetric. As to the genus Thestor (which Clench does not mention 

 again, since it is restricted to South Africa), I consider it has nothing to do with the 

 Lipteninae, the fore tarsi of the male being segmented. 



Page 269 : — Subfamily Pentilinae. 



I see no objection to the generic treatment adopted by Clench. Indeed I fully 

 support his creation of the genus Ptelina for carnnta Hewitson, having already 

 indicated, following Bethune Baker, that this species should be eliminated from the 

 genus Telipna. I would point out, however, that the male genitalia of carnuta are 

 clearly analogous to those of Alaena, particularly in respect of its dorsal elements 

 and the presence of subunci. 



Page 281 : — Key to the Tribes of Lipteninae. 



1 Fore wing R3_5 arises distinctly before upper angle of cell, well separated from origin of 

 M ; male with coremata eversible ventral sacs bearing long, modified scales, the 

 sacs just anterior to genital capsule ........ Epitolini 



