392 
LASIOCAMPIDAE; LEBEDA. By Dr. K. Grunberg. 
nob il is. 
cognata. 
as we see it carried out at the present day with the Indo-Australian day-butterflies. The South Asiatic 
Lasiocampidae, as for instance the very variable species of Metanastria, Cosmotriche or Arguda are no less paying 
objects than our palearctic species. 
That we are still very far remote from a thorough exploration of the Indian Lasiocampid fauna, 
we can gauge best from the paucity of knowledge we have had up till now of their early stages, their meta¬ 
morphosis and habits. We cannot even say that their biology is only fragmentarily known, for it really forms 
only one sole vast gap, a compact desideratum, if we leave out the most frequent species forcing themselves 
upon us by their size alone. Even at Sikkim, on the classical grounds of the Indian entomology, the observations 
have not proceeded beyond those species which by their frequency may stand a comparison, let us say with 
the European Gastropacha neustria or Gartropacha rubi (fox-moth) and all of which have already been enumerated 
as boundary forms in the palearctic fauna. 
The most conspicuous character of the Indian Lasiocampid fauna in its more restricted sense is their 
abundance in specimens of a large size. Species, such as Lebeda nobilis, Suana concolor, Metanastria arnpla 
and lidderdali surely belong to the most prominent of Indian Heterocera. The species last named are little 
inferior to the large African Gonometa-sipecies, the biggest Lasiocampidae we know. With some genera we find a 
strongly pronounced sexual dimorphism, quite similar to that of Gonometa where it is particularly conspicuous, 
as for instance with Suana, Taragama, Entometa, Pinara, Crexa. The distinctions, however, are invariably 
restricted to size and contour of wings; species with wingless $$ as they occur for instance with the palearctic 
genera Chondrostega {Led.) and Lambessa (Stgr. i. 1.) we know neither from India nor Australia. Some genera, 
the wings of which are strikingly sparsely scaled and transparent as is the case with the Australian CVerm-species, 
or those having some sporadic vitreous spots, as the Odontocraspis, are yet worth mentioning. The latter genus, 
of which only one species is known, might at first sight rather be taken foraHesperid than for a Lasiocampid. 
With the Australian Lasiocampidae we see the contrary to the Indian; only medium-sized or small 
forms, if we do not take the few larger species of Cyclophragma into account, for with the provisionally represented 
genus Cycethra, which is also rather of good size, the position of the Lasiocampidae appears to be yet a little 
problematical. At any rate the Lasiocampids of Australia and Tasmania form a faunistic group for themselves 
particularly characteristic by the genera Entometa, Perna, Porela, Pinara, Crexa, Aspiducha, which are only 
peculiar to this insulated district. We cannot cite one genus of which we should precisely know its occurrence 
in both the Indian and Australian district simultaneously, for in the species albigutta Wkr. from Queensland 
hitherto assigned to Arguda, the statement that it belongs to the same genus is doubtful, which is also the case 
with Arguda pratti of New Guinea. The only genus really closely joined to representatives of the typical Indian 
fauna and particularly to the genus Metanastria, which extends as far as New Guinea, is Cyclophragma and we 
know 3 species of it from New Guinea and North Australia, two of which are common to both districts. Some 
genera which appear to be indigenous to New Guinea, Pararguda, Isostigena, Sporostigena, exhibit a closer 
or more distant alliance to Indian genera, and it seems that in New Guinea, the country of the zoogeographical 
riddles will likewise be borne out for the family of the Lasiocampidae what we already know of numerous other 
groups of animals, so that here many links combine in forming connections between India and the Archipelago 
on the one side and Australia on the other, which, however, can only then be surveyed if the fauna of this vast 
district will once be better known. At any rate the relations to the Indian fauna will be more predominating 
than those of the Australian, at least with respect to the Lasiocampidae. 
In New Zealand the Lasiocampidae seem to be quite absent. 
1. Genus: Lebeda Wkr. 
The only Himalayan representative of this genus known hitherto, L. nobilis Wkr. (Vol. II, t. 30 d) is 
no less conspicuous by its large size than by the prettiness of its marking chiefly effected by the subdued, warm 
tint, as well as by bright contrasts. It has already been dealt with in the palearctic part (Vol. VII, p. 174, 
t. 30). The marking of the is of darker, more intense tints than in the $, the sexual difference being also 
very distinctly expressed by the size, without, however, overstepping the boundaries of the normal state. In 
their strong and squat body large §9 are not inferior to those of Suana concolor (Vol. II, t. 29 c), but in the 
expanse of wings they are even by far excelled by them. North Western and Eastern Himalaya, from North 
India to Cashmir; Darjeeling, Sylhet, Nagas, Nepal. 
Another species originating from Borneo has only lately been described: 
L. cognata Gritnb. (33 c) resembles L. nobilis, but it is smaller, with a less pronounced, more diffuse mar¬ 
king. Head and thorax ash-grey, abdomen dark brown with a lighter apex. Median area of forewing deep choco¬ 
late-brown with a distinct white discal spot, from which a blackish-brown longitudinal ray proceeds as in nobilis, 
though it is indistinct here, the whole distal costal-marginal half as far as the extensive light innermarginal spot 
being much darker. Of the broad light transverse bands bordering on the discal area on both sides in nobilis 
