140 



INSECTS OF SAMOA. 



20. Gymnoscelis erymna (Meyrick). 



Eupithecia erymna $ Meyrick, Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1889, p. 192, 1886 (Tonga). 



? ? Dolerosceles erymna Meyrick, Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1889, p. 480, 1889 (British New Guinea). 



Gymnoscelis erymna (part.) Meyrick, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, (2), v, 794, 1891 (Tonga). 



•Gymnoscelis concinna Swinhoe, Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902, p. 651, 1902 (Tonga). 



? Gymnoscelis semipurpurea Rebel, 2 Beih. Jahrb. Hamb. Wiss. Anst., xxxii, 150, 1915 (Samoa). 



Upolu : Apia, 1 v.1896 (P. de la Garde) ; 1 % 13.ix.1923 (Swezey and 

 Wilder) ; 2 $2, 24.V.1924 ; 1 % 30.V.1924 ; 1 ?, x.1925 ; Malololelei, 2 <&J, 

 1 2, 22.ii.1924 ; 1 24.ii.1924 ; 1 6 $?, 2,000 feet, 25.ii.1924. 



Tutuila : Pago Pago, 1 <$, v.1896 (P. de la Garde). 



Besides specimens from Tonga and Samoa, the British Museum has a single 

 example from Pitcairn Is. Other localities from which the present species has. 

 been recorded are either very doubtful or positively erroneous — cf. Meyrick, 

 Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, (2), v, 794, 1891, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., xvi, 225-6, 

 1904, and Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxxi, 684, 1906. 



Meyrick's supposed " $ type " (allotype) belongs to a different species, 

 having SC 1 of the fore wing running into C, the hind wing emarginate between 

 the radials, the postmedian line of both wings angled at R l instead of R 3 , etc. 

 The (J holotype is unfortunately worn, and it is no doubt the dissimilarity 

 between the spurious allotype and the two beautiful which were subsequently 

 received, that misled Swinhoe into erecting a new species (G. concinna) for 

 the latter. In the true G. erymna = G. concinna as Meyrick rightly indicates, 

 SC 1 of the fore wing does not touch C ; at least this is, without exception, the 

 case in over twenty examples examined by me, although in one Malololelei § 

 the approach is so close that an occasional aberration with slight anastomosis 

 would not be an impossible development. 



In view of the confusion that has arisen over this species, which is 

 shown by the Samoan series to be decidedly variable, I give some further 

 description. 



Frontal cone rather sharp. Palpus 1| or scarcely over, second segment 

 with a small dark tuft beneath at its distal end, third segment short to medium, 

 distinct, rather robust, somewhat deflexed and appearing more so on account 

 of the longitudinal curvature of its upper side. Antennal ciliation of $ 1, of 

 $ \. Abdomen of elongate. Fore wing elongate, with costa straight except 

 at base and near apex ; antemedian double, generally with the interspace dark- 



