68 
BRACHYGLOSSINA. By L. B. Prottt. 
acidalaria. 
mauritanica. 
taut alid, is. 
staudingeri. 
oranaria. 
has been made of the enormous genus Sterrha, it is not possible to say whether Brachyglossina represents a 
sharply definable group. The few Palaearctic species referred here are evidently nearly related and it is inte¬ 
resting to notice that Wagner, Turati and Culot have all seen in them a superficial resemblance to Scopula 
rubellata Rbr. Early stages unknown. The genotype is B. acidalaria. A few other species with the tongue 
atrophied (Sterrha fathmaria, lobar ia, detritaria, improbata, purpureomarginata) have probably arrived at this 
condition by independent paths, though one or two of them may prove, on closer study, to have really some 
near affinity to the present group. 
B. acidalaria F. Wagn. I have not seen Wagner's unique type, a £ from Djebel-Djelloud, near Tunis, 
taken at the end of April, and the description does not give the colour of the face nor the shape of the hinclwing. 
two of the chief distinctions (provisionally) between the type of mauritanica and the variable tantalidis ; more¬ 
over, the hindlegs were lost before the description was made and the wing-expanse is not indicated. Hence I 
cannot venture to say whether it sinks to mauritanica or supplants tantalidis, or whether it represents still 
another form in this difficult group. “Pale seal-red (reddish yellow), forewing with 2 black lines; a double 
(basewards more distinct) strongly dentate one in outer third, which is continued more weakly on the hind¬ 
wing, and a simple and less strongly dentate one at Y 3 ; at end of cell a strong black dot. Scaling very coarse 
and dense (with the lens the surface of both wings appears sprinkled throughout with dark scales, the markings 
broken, only on the veins as accumulations of black-brown scales). Terrnen unmarked. Fringe concolorous, 
in distal half somewhat lighter. Underside blackish brown, forewing in posterior third and hindwing in distal 
half noticeably lighter; the reddish-yellow fringes sharply contrasting." 
B. mauritanica B.-Bak. (Vol. 4, pi. 5 d) was rather fully described from the type on p. 108 of Vol. 4, 
but (perhaps unconsciously prejudiced by the position assigned to it in Staudinger’s Catalog, whose sequence 
I followed) I compared it with cervantaria and evidently neglected to study the structure of the head. This 
circumstance and the inaccurate coloration of our figure have unfortunately given rise to much misunderstand¬ 
ing, so that the name has been transferred to similarly coloured Algerian forms of cervantaria. Face broader and 
less black (reddish brown, with some grey suffusion), tongue very slight (in cervantaria fully developed), hindleg 
much as in tantalidis, the tarsus somewhat less than x / 2 tibia. The strongly convex margin of the hindwing 
is well brought out in our figure, but the coloration should be more uniform, closely like that of tandalidis (6 i), 
the markings also as in that, though not quite so weak as in the figured specimen, the postmedian line somewhat 
unusually proximal (seldom matched in tantalidis)-, hindwing with the 2nd subcostal and 1st radial stalked to 
somewhat beyond ]/ 2 . The underside is more suffused than in tantalidis, recalling the description of acidalaria. 
If the shape of the hindwing in the Guelma type is abnormal, a few other examples from scattered Algerian 
localities may also belong here, but I know no second specimen which can safely be thus determined. 
B. tantalidis Trti. (6 i). Variable in the strength of the markings and very variable in size, a second 
(and perhaps a third) generation being much smaller than the spring form here figured; also somewhat variable 
in the length of the stalking of the 2nd subcostal of the hindwing, which is on an average somewhat longer 
than in mauritanica type. Face nearly concolorous with body and wings, or a little redder ; I have not seen 
any example in which it has the dark suffusion of that of mauritanica. Palpus perhaps a trifle shorter than 
in mauritanica. Hindwing less convex. Terminal line and fringe-dots weak or wanting (the latter fairly well 
developed in mauritanica type, but probably more or less variable). The £ hindtarsus almost certainly varies 
somewhat in length, from about (4 tibia to decidedly less, though never so short as in the oranaria group; the 
tibia somewhat thickened by long, loose hair-scaling, but without pencil. Antenna in the $ with the joints 
somewhat triangularly projecting, the ciliation rather long; the scaling on some of the joints beyond the middle 
long and rather rough, somewhat overlapping. Bengasi, common in February and March and again in Mav- 
June, perhaps also later. Possibly also in Tunis and Algeria (see the two preceding). 
B. staudingeri Proud (= uniformis Stgr., nec Warr.) (Vol. 4, pi. 3 h, as uniformis). According to the 
definition this should also obviously be a Brachyglossina, the absence of tongue, the antenna, cell of forewing, 
subcostal of hindwing and even the coloration and simple pattern agreeing well. Face, vertex and collar con¬ 
colorous with wings. Hindtibia of not thickened, tarsus only 1-jointed. Underside without irroration or 
markings, only on the forewing with (weakly developed) cell-dot. Aedoeagus much more slender than in the 
other Brachyglossina, with 3 or 4 short cornuti at the end. Best known from the neighbourhood of Jericho. 
B. oranaria B.-Haas. (6 b). This species promises to give almost as much trouble as mauritanica. With the 
kind co-operation of Mr. 0. Bang-Haas and Dr. H. Zerny I was able a few years ago to examine the type 
Unfortunately it differs in several particulars from the common Brachyglossina which has passed under the 
name. Tongue rolled, perhaps short, but certainly not altogether vestigial, therefore no true Brachyglossina. An¬ 
tennal ciliation rather even, apparently not longer than diameter of shaft. Hindtibia rather thick, a trifle longer 
than femur, roughened, but without any hair-pencil, the tarsus about x / 4 . The forewing is slightly broader, 
the hindwing slightly better rounded, than in the ordinary forms; subterminal area extremely weakly marked, 
cell-dot of hindwing minute, postmedian about midway between it and distal margin, rather regular; forewing 
