pseudo condi- 
taria. 
conditaria. 
conspicua- 
ria. 
scmilauta. 
deniifascia. 
mandarina- 
ria. 
182 EOIS; PALPOCTENIDIA; PHYSETOBASIS; EUPITHECIA. By L. B. Prout. 
L. pseudoconditaria Sterneck, founded on a single A from Ta-tsien-lu, is said to be almost exactly 
intermediate between plurilinearia and conditaria, but I gather from the description that it is not impossible 
it may be a remarkable aberration of the latter, which is by no means rare in that locality. Reddish brown, 
as in conditaria-, postmedian, unlike that of both the species named, acutely angled costally, scarcely incurved 
at fold; the light band beyond it not broken into segments by dark vein-marks, the central longitudinal streak 
almost wanting. Hindwing as sharply marked as in plurilinearia, coloured nearly as forewing and with simi¬ 
larly clear band outside the postmedian. 
L. conditaria Leech (Vol. 4, pi. 7 g). I have now a long series before me, from different localities in 
W. China. It varies very little, but some specimens with less weakly marked hindwing perhaps indicate a 
possibility that it might, exceptionally, assume the guise indicated by the description of pseudoconditaria. 
70, Genus: Eois Hbn. 
(See Vol. 16, p. 83.) 
This genus, which was dealt with in Vol. 4 (p. 273) under its younger name of Cambogia Guen., is pro¬ 
bably not really represented in the Palaearctic Region; Acolutha Warr. is now regarded as a good genus (which 
can stand as 70 a) and I have had to ei’ect a new genus for phoenicosoma (see below), so that only the unique 
$ of the following is even provisionally left here; in the rest ( Acolutha and Palpoctenidia) I am inclined to see 
Sterrhine affinities, the small or obsolete areole, with all the subcostals stalked (the 5th generally branching 
off before the 1st), recalling the Anisodes group. 
E. (?) conspicuaria Leech (Vol. 4, pi. 12 b). I decline to erect a genus for this until the A is discovered; 
it might be considered a Hydrelia (sens, lat.), with erratic shape and pattern. Face rather prominent; 1st sub¬ 
costal arising first, 2nd—5th long-stalked, 1st median of both wings well separate. Really no Eois. 
70b. Genus: Palpoeteiiidisi Prout. 
Differs from Eschatarchia in the pectinate <$, lack of areole and perhaps in the broader, slightly less 
flattened face, as well as in its superficial appearance; from Eois (vera) in having the 1st subcostal arising before 
the 5th and the 1st median of the hindwing well separate. Only one species is known. 
P. phoenicosoma Swinh. semilauta subsp. nov. (16 k). Rather broad-winged and pale, forewing with 
median band less clouded, hindwing with subsidiary lines almost wanting, outer line more angled than in 
p. phoenicosoma, the shade which proximally bounds it darker than the ground-colour. Japan: Oiwake, etc., 
2 6 (Pryer) (called phoenicosoma in Vol. 4); Takao-San, 1 $ in the Tring Museum. 
71, Genus: Pliysetobasis Hmps. 
(See Vol. 4, p. 274.) 
By an oversight, I omitted to indicate that the areole of the forewing is double. 
Ph. dentifascia Hmps. There are probably several subspecies embraced within this conception, but the 
species is seldem taken in numbers and I have not been able to arrive at anything decisive regarding them. 
From N. W. India I have seen a few from Simla and Dalhousie in addition to the Dharmsala type; these can 
in any case be safely kept together. Then from Lower Burma I have seen an aberration (?) rather weakly 
marked except the cell-spot and the principal lines, from Upper Burma a small dark and from Yunnan 
a small rufescent one, somewhat intermediate towards — mamdarinaria Leech (Vcl. 4, pi. 11 i). This is larger 
and more rufescent than typical dentifascia. The originals came from Ta-tsien-lu, Wa-shan and Pu-tsu-fong 
(Szechuan) and I have since seen a good many from the first-named locality, tolerably homogeneous. The 
Kiukiang $ mentioned in Vol. 4 (p. 274) bears nearly the same relation to mandarinaria as the Lower Burma 
$ to dentifascia. 
73. Genus: JEupftli ec*la Curt. 
(See Vol. 4, p. 274: Vol 16. p. 100.) 
No further monographic work, comparable with that to which attention was called in Vol. 4, has been 
published on this genus. Pierce’s “Genitalia of the British Geometridae”, which appeared in the same year 
as our account, has supplemented and in some details corrected Petersen’s memoir (Iris, Vol. 22, not “20” 
as misprinted) and Janse’s work on the moths of South Africa has considerably advanced our knowledge of 
the Eupithecia of a restricted fauna; for the rest, the additions made during the last twenty years are scattered 
and fragmentary. E. Lange’s notes on the Freiberg Eupithecia (Iris, Vol. 38, p. 40—50, 159—80) are inter¬ 
esting especially for the notes on the habits of various species. In the following pages I would, for convenience 
