95 



complement of the other, and each is indispensable. Many a country 

 ramble — or " scramble" is often the more accurate term — may thus 

 develop into an interesting physical enquiry. And it is wonderful 

 how the miles, and, alas ! the hours are thus eliminated. 



Remarks on PsilopSeura h^masoma, D. Jones. 



By W. Parkinson Curtis, Esq., F.E.S. 



(Read the 16th day of March, igi2, and revised stib sequent ly). 



" | "his insect which I had described and named early in 1910 was, 

 * I was informed by Sir George Hampson, identical with an 

 insect described as Psilopleura haemasoma by Mr. E. 

 Dukinfield Jones, but the description had not, when I read my paper 

 to the Society, been published. I have not yet had the good fortune 

 to come across the published description in the course of my reading 

 and accordingly I am unable to refer to the description by Mr, 

 Dukinfield Jones. I have suppressed my own intended name as I 

 did not wish to pile up synonyms ; moreover, Sir George Hampson 

 told me that Mr. Dukinfield Jones had a number of specimens 

 before him of both sexes whilst I had only a single female ; he was 

 therefore in a better position to characterize the species than I was. 



For the clear understanding of what follows reference to the 

 Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Phalaense (Sir G. F. Hampson) 

 Vol. 1 should be made, as the cost of illustrating throughout with 

 figures is prohibitive, and the above mentioned work is in the 

 Bournemouth Public Library and accessible to any member of our 

 Society. 



By reference to the plate here given and the figures in the 

 before mentioned work it will be seen that the following characters of 

 the family Syntomidae are exhibited. 



(i) Hindwing with cell emitting less than 6 veins. 



Contrast with Hepiahts lupulinus the Common Swift which emits 

 more than 6. 



(ii) The antennae are not clubbed. 



Contrast with antennae of Pieris brassiae the Cabbage White 

 butterfly (I must admit that the only part I had of the antennas was 

 a fragment of about 25 annuli but the facies of the insect is 

 heterocerous). 



(iii) Hind wing vein 1 c absent. 



Contrast with Coccus lignaperda the Goat moth. 



(iv) Forewing with vein 5 nearer 4 than 6. 



Contrast with Sphinx ligustri the Privet Hawk moth. 



(v) Hindwing with vein 8 aborted. 



Contrast again with hindwing of Sphinx ligustri in which the 

 vein is present and robust. 



(Any member who cares to take the trouble to strip the wings 

 of the above common insects I have cited by the methods suggested 

 in Comstock's Manual will be able to see these distinctions very 

 clearly and will besides derive considerable useful knowledge on 

 the variation of wing structure as an aid to classification.) 



