rhipidura. 
crinipes. 
rhopalopus. 
das y pus. 
villitibxa. 
rh i pistis. 
bathromyses. 
diccnea. 
/ 
236 STERRHA. By L. B. Prout. 
(as in nanatci ).'" The dark costa is distinctive. Teoor Island. The midleg is tufted, the tarsus very strong, its 
1st joint long, its 2nd also strongly clothed - probably also the 3rd and 4th ; possibly another form of nanatci. 
S. rliipidura Meyr. (23 i). The type came from Port Moresby and I have seen a $ from Sariba Is¬ 
land; Swinhoe erroneously sank to it sericeipennis and subrubellata. It is almost exactly like a diminutive 
crinipes (23 i) except that the $ genitalia are enormously developed, with spreading coremata. I quote the 
description. 'T4 mm. Forewing with costa almost straight, termen bowed, rather oblique; pale whitish- 
ochreous. suffusedlv irroratecl with pale crimson; lines represented by irregular series of blackish dots; a dark 
grey discal clot; faint traces of subterminal lines. Hindwing with termen rounded, first line obsolete, pale lines 
more distinctly indicated; an interrupted dark crimson-fuscous terminal line.'' 
S. crinipes Warr. (— catacoma Turn .) (23 i) differs from all the previous “ Xenocentris " (except rhipi¬ 
dura) in its reddish colour, combined with a “ploughshare-shaped" hindtarsus and very long antennal ciliation 
in the S - Misled by a lapsus (sarcely possibly an error of observation) of Warren's, Turner assumed that 
there were two Queensland species involved here, which is definitely not the case; Warren wrote that the 
“fore" tibia of the $ was densely hairy, a character which really belongs only to the m i d d 1 e tibia and proximal 
part of midtarsus. N. Queensland; also known from the Louisiades. 
S. rhopalopus Tarn. Hindleg similar to that of crinipes but ending in a large obtuse club (somewhat 
damaged in both the original specimens); in any case easily distinguishable by its much shorter ciliation (1) 
and its ochreous-whitish colour. 15— 16 mm. “Forewing antemedian line from 1 costa bent inwards at a 
right angle in disc, and again at a right angle to end in 1 , hindmargin; median line from midcosta to 2 3 hind- 
margin; postmedian, subterminal and submarginal lines faintly indicated; an interrupted fuscous terminal line; 
fringe with fuscous irroration." Hindwing similar, with termen rounded. Founded on 2 gg from Townsville; 
later recorded from Herberton, X. Q. 
S. dasypus Turn, is also unknown to me. Expanse 18 mm. Hindleg with the tibia and tarsus much 
dilated, forming an obtuse club. Antennal ciliation shorter than in rhopalopus (%). Pale pinkish, with very 
indistinct indications of the three principal lines in pale fuscous. Hindwing rhombiform, “strongly bowed and 
very prominent on vein 5". Kuranda. 1 The peculiar shape of the hindwing should render recognition easy. 
S. villitibia Prout. Expanse 22 mm. I described this as “apparently a highly specialized development 
of proximaria Leech (Vol. 4, pi. 7 c), the hindwing shape recalling that of informis Warr.”. Midleg densely clothed 
with partly floccous and partly long suberect hair, hindleg short, weak, hairy. In some respects conformable 
to the description of dasypus, but with the hindwing narrowed, its prominence at the medians instead of the 
radials. its underside densely clothed with specialized scaling, both wings with cell-dot present and a narrow 
dark distal border, rather irregular and not sharply defined proximally, in its widest parts less than 1 mm in 
breadth. Szechuan: Kwanhsien, 1 <$. 
S. rhipistis Meyr. (23 1). For this species was proposed a genus Pythodora Meyr.: “Antenna - :i of fore¬ 
wing. in A with 2 tufts of long cilia (2U) on each joint. Posterior legs of $ with tibia and tarsus wholly 
absent, femur with a fan of extremely long projecting scales from whole length. Forewing with vein 6 remote 
from 9". areole single, 1st subcostal generally stalked beyond 5th. Hindwing normal, the stalking of 2nd sub¬ 
costal with 1st radial generally short. Unless the Gosymbia- like reversal of the positions of the 1st and the 
5th subcostal be considered generic there is no need to separate it from Sterrha-, the $ hindleg has the normal 
2 spurs and the assumed absence of the tibia in the <$ must have been due to its being appresed to tire femur 
and concealed by the remarkably strong fan from the femoro-tibial joint. The type $ is a beautiful, broad- 
winged specimen, but I think the subsequently determined material is correctly identified. Fiji. Some more 
ochreous-tinted $$ from Samoa perhaps also belong here (see under rufnla , above); the $$ will elucidate their 
position. 
S. bathromyses Prout (23 i). Rather longer-winged, not quite so glossy, the lines much less parallel 
with one another and with termen, the costal spots (of which there is no trace in rhipistis) well discernible even 
in the most worn examples. Fiji: Vunidawa (type) and Suva. Viti Levu, only $$ yet received. 
S. dicenea Prout. The 2 differs from bathromyses as follows: More fuscous-suffused (sometimes almost 
wholly so); cell-dots more minute; postmedian line more distally placed, at least as far from cell-dot as from 
termen. between the radials not incurved, at costa of forewing not forming such a large black spot; subterminal 
expanding into conspicuous white spots at both folds, the one between the radials touching the postmedian 
line. Vunidawa. An extremely wasted $ has the antennal fascicles at least 2 (thus almost as long as in rhipistis) 
the hindleg with a very strong red tuft, also approaching that of rhipistis. The hindwing in the present species 
has the 2nd subcostal generally better stalked than in the two preceding, but in all three the character is too 
variable to be entirely dependable. 
