9 6 



The generic characters displayed are as follows : — 



(i) Hindwings with 6 and 7 not coincident. 



(I have in giving this resume of the generic characters as 

 tabulated by Sir G. F. Hampson referred to his figures since speci- 

 mens themselves for actual study are not easily procured.) 

 Contrast Ceryx pleurosticta, p. 35, fig. 16. 



(ii) Hindwings with 5 obsolescent from the angle of the discocellulars. 



Contrast Leucopleura cucadma, p. 424, fig. 224. 



(iii) Hindwings 3 coincident with 2. 



Contrast Chlorosostola corydon, p. 428, fig. 228. 



(iv) Forewing with vein 10, stalked with 7, 8 and 9. 



Contrast Ovcynia calcatata, p. 154, fig. 66. 



(v) Abdomen without lateral tufts on last segment. 



Contrast Enrota kermione, p. 286, fig. 134. 



(vi) Abdomen not constricted near the base. 



'When originally working at this insect it was at this point that 

 I parted company with the table. The specimen I possess has a 

 most decided constriction and I have drawn it as it appears. It is 

 of course perfectly possible that this constriction is due to the way 

 in which my individual specimen dried, but as it was all the material 

 I had I failed to place it correctly. I considered that it approxi- 

 mated Pompiliodes Hampson, but it differed markedly from that genus 

 since 3 was entirely absent from the hindwings. A glance at 

 Pseudospliex, p. 154; Bombopsyche, p. 161; Sphecosoma, p. 57; 

 Pompiciopsis, p. 161, and Pompiliodes, p. 162, will show that the four 

 first mentioned genera have an extremely constricted abdomen to 

 enable them to copy faithfully their hymenopterous models, whilst 

 in Pompiiiodes, especially aliena Wlk, fig. 163, this constriction is so 

 little pronounced as to be hardly noticeable. However, in 

 Pompiliodes 3 is, as I have said, present in the hindwings which it is 

 not in Psilopleura. A glance at the figures of Psilopleura, viz : 

 fig. 12 t, and plate x, fig. 6 and 8, shew that whilst 2 have a normal 

 abdomen the third has a somewhat constricted base if not an actual 

 constriction near the base ; this species P. safiguipuncta Hampson 

 seems very close to my species. 



(vii) Antennae with shaft not dilated. 



Compare fig. 121 with Eunomia colombiua, p. 201, fig. 95, and 

 Hoffwecera lophocera, p. 166, fig. 79. 



(viii) Thorax smoothly scaled. 



Contrast Dasyphinx mucescens, p. 188, fig. 88. 

 (ixj Hind wing 6 and 7 from cell. 



Contrast Paraniya intersecta, p. 164, fig. 77. 



(x) Hindwing with disoceliulars angled. 



Contrast Pheia albisigna, p. 205, fig. 97. 



(xi) Hindwing with 2 and 4 from angle of cell or shortly stalked. 



Compare Mimagyrta pampa, p. 206, fig. 98. 



(xii) Hind tibiae and tarsi naked. 



Compare Pseudomya minima, plate x, fig. 7. 



(xiii) Forewing with vein 6 from below upper angle of cell. 



Compare Saurita tristissima, p. 273, fig. 126. 



(xiv) Forewing with vein 5 from lower angle of cell. 



Confer Hypatia delecta, p. 267, fig. 120. 



It will be observed the 4 and 5 of the forewing in Psilopleura 

 practically meet at the base. 



