70 
RHODOMETRA. By L. B. Prout. 
experience, this form shows also an usually distinct rosy cell-dot, and Zeller’s collection proves that this 
jumosa. was also the case with his “var. b”. — ab. fumosa ab. nov. (7 c) has both wings dulled with smoky grey, the 
cell-dot and oblique stripe blackish (an extreme development of ab. Icibda, although the stripe is here complete). 
Otherwise a grey suffusion of the hindwing seems only known in a few extreme developments of ab. sanguinaria 
(namely ab. lividaria Costa and ab. rosea Oberih.). Type a $ from Blida, in the Tring Museum. — The geo¬ 
graphical range of sacraria is even more extended than was indicated in our summary; I have now before me 
specimens from Yunnan and Tse-kou (Chinese-Tibetan frontier) besides the Canaries, Madeira, St. Helena and 
Madagascar. In the Palaearctic Region its strong migratory tendencies effectually prevent the formation of 
geographical races, but from the Naukhift Mountains, S. W. Africa, I have recently (since publishing p. 82 
of Vol. 16 of this work) seen a well differentiated form, or very closely allied species, which, in the absence of 
morphological distinctions, will have to be treated as a subspecies. 
rosearia. R. rosearia Tr. (Vol. 4, pi. 7 f). I know of no other records of this species from Spain than Thierry- 
Mieg’s of his ab. elvira, nor of any authentic record from Albarracin of any Rhodemetra other than sacraria. 
I suspect that he was mistaken as regards either the determination or the locality. 
antophila- R. antophilaria Hbn. (= autophilaria SJierborn, ex err.). Here, as always, I conserve the original spel- 
rm - ling of a name. I have not yet been able to get together sufficiently abundant material for a thorough-going 
revision of this variable species. The name-typical form (Hubner's original was almost certainly from S. E. 
Russia) and its rosy ab. subrosearia Stgr. (Vol. 4, pi. 6 a) are sufficiently well known. In Inner Anatolia, 
F. Wagner found the latter form to be chiefly, though not exclusively $. The extremely sacraria- like ab. 
subsacraria Stgr. was also founded on material from the Ural, being, indeed the “ sacraria ” of Eversmann (mis- 
identified from Linne). Probably the practised eye would scarcely ever confuse these with the similar forms 
found, for instance, in North Africa and some errors have perhaps arisen from attempts to give too wide an 
application to some of the names (e. g. ab. albipunctaria ) or to unite as synonyms some which have had an 
consecraria. independant geographical origin (e. g. subsacraria and gegenaria). —- consecraria Rmb. (7 c) differs from the 
most similar Russian forms (ab. subrosearia Stgr., sens, lat.) in its generally larger size and in having the hind¬ 
wing less strongly darkened (in any case with the pale postmedian band broader), sometimes with scarcely 
more than a grey line (or narrow stripe) to indicate the darkening, but never clear white; forewing variable, 
but always sufficiently dark to show the white cell-spot, (hence the African records of “ab. albipunctaria''). 
Scarce in S. Spain, less so in N. Africa. 
intermedia- R. intermediary Trti. (7 c) erected as a separate species, is intermediate between sacraria and anto- 
rm • philaria form, subsacraria, closest to the latter, from which it is differentiated by the (slight) curvature of the 
line as it approaches the costa of the forewing (so that it more nearly follows the course of the distal margin. 
Founded on a single $ from Barce (Merg), its application has been widened by Kruger to comprise the race 
(or species) from that district. I abstain from calling it a synonym (or ab.) of subsacraria because I am not 
yet certain that the N. African forms passing under that name are identical with the true “ antophilaria ab. sub¬ 
sacraria" of Sarepta; if not, Tttrati’s name will be required and the range given as Cirenaica to Oran and 
\ S. Spain. To judge from a very few Spanish specimens and good series from Algeria, there seems such a 
sharp demarcation between antophilaria consecraria and these sacraria-\\ke forms as to justify the idea that 
parallela- we may perhaps be dealing with two separate species. — ab. parallelaria Kruger. “Distal stripe of forewing 
ria. grey, more or less smoky.” Uadi Cuf (Central Gebel), 1 <$\ Bu Fachra and Carcura, 4 and 2 
5. Subfam.: Larentiinae. 
No systematic revision of this subfamily, from the standpoint of the Palaearctic fauna, has been publish- 
ed since the appearance of our Vol. 4 and there seems no need, to depart from the sequence of genera therein 
adopted, although it is admittedly based on a compromise between some different points of view. A valuable 
article on “The Genera of Hydriomeninae (Larentiinae) of the United States”, with keys and notes, was pub¬ 
lished by Wm. T. M. Forbes in the Journal of the New York Entomological Society, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1917) and 
will be taken into consideration in Vol. 8 of the Macrolepidoptera of the World, but deserves mention here 
in account of the near relationship between the Palaearctic and the Nearctic fauna and the consequent inclu¬ 
sion of most of the Palaearctic genera. Forbes suggests that Stamnocles “perhaps represents the most primitive 
of living Hydriomeninae" and makes other suggestive comments on relationships, which will occasionally be 
mentioned in the following pages; but on the whole he uses essentially the same classificatory system upon 
which I have hitherto worked. 
Concerning the genus (or rather, supergenus) Cidaria, I remain firmly convinced that many of its ele¬ 
ments really represent natural genera, but I have not thought it necessary to force this view upon the reader 
and therefore continue to deal with them as “subgenera”. 
