EUPITHECIA. By L. B. Prout. 
203 
E. marmaricata Trti. (18 d). “20—22 mm. Forewing iron grey with blackish lines relieved distally marmarica- 
with light colour. In cut of wings, general course of lines and arrangement of markings recalls unedonata. That 
species, howewer has a more violaceous brown colour, the lines more slender and not sharply light-outlined. The 
postmedian forms an extremely acute angle opposite to the black cell-mark, the subterminal sends out a light dash 
from the angle into the apex.” Hindwing lighter, the anal region darker and well marked. Bengasi (type), the 
differentiation confirmed on a fine series of 20. A similar iron-grey sjiecimen from “Syria” stands in the British 
Museum as “ unedonata parallelaria”. 
E. aequistriaria Trti. & Kruger. “20 mm”. Greyish cinereous, with a white effect produced on the aequistria- 
forewing by numerous equidistant transverse lines; predistal line white, twice angled near costa (inward and 
outward); subterminal white, more slenderly waved; cell-dot black, standing out little among the striae. Hind¬ 
wing a little lighter in the disc, with 2 curved lines in the disc; fringe concolorous, preceded by a terminal series 
of slender black marks. Underside pellucid ashy-grey, with the transverse lines and cell-dots of the upperside 
rather confusedly indicated. Scleidima, Cyrenaica, 20 November 1934, 1 example. “Might be placed near 
marmaricata Trti.” 
E. acutula Trti. & Kruger. “16 mm.” Noteworthy in its wing-shape, apex of forewing acute. Fore- acutula. 
wing with greyish markings on a slightly brownish ground; all the lines maintain their width from costa to 
hindmargin; “praeapical” [predistal] white line with a bay inward towards costa, preceded proximally by an 
undulate line [postmedian] of a more intense black; distal area uniform grey, fringe concolorous. Hindwing 
with the abdominal region (perhaps %) dark, well lined, the rest whitish. “Might be placed near innotata.” 
A $ from Zuetina, Cyrenaica, 20 November 1934. 
E. undulataria Trti. (18 d). Antennal ciliation of 1. In shape and tone resembling a pale relaxata, undulataria. 
but with the frons more strongly protuberant, the cell-mark still smaller, the lines of the forewing very slender, 
very numerous, almost equal in development throughout, the postmedian group (3 or 4) just distinguishable 
by their slightly whiter interspaces, their subcostal angulations somewhat less acute than in the 3 preceding. 
Cyrenaica: Porto Bardia, several examples, the type $ dated 30 November. 
E. relaxata Dietze. It is, unfortunately, quite impossible to conserve the nomenclature which Dietze relaxata. 
in his monograph adopted for this species; for it conflicts with his own original. In 1904 (Iris, Vol. 16) he erected 
relaxata, on a $ from Schahkuh, as a possible subspecies of unedonata and described the form with the lines 
thickened at the costa into blackish spots as — ab. costisignata Dietze (Vol. 4, pi. 25 e). This was founded on costisignata. 
specimens from Schahkuh and Korla, the latter subsequently declared holotype and a series from Yarkand 
added. He very justifiably concluded that “ relaxata is thus (biologically) only a secondary form of costisignata, 
not vice versa”, but forgot that it is impossible to modify a stable priority-law of names in favour of changing 
views on phylogeny. — ab. famelica Dietze, which its author was later inclined to suppress, is a clayey-toned famelica. 
specimen from Makan Desert, Aksu, with the transverse markings sharp but without strongly broadened black 
costal spots. Intermediate towards parallelaria. — I have made several attempts to arrive at some understan¬ 
ding of this complicated group of Central Asiatic forms, but have been defented by the total inadequacy of 
available material. To judge from a $ relaxata from the Elburs Mountains, the frons is somewhat more pro¬ 
tuberant than in unedonata. I notice also Petersen’s pronouncement (in litt., quoted by Dietze) on the geni¬ 
talia: and $ as distinctively (eigenartig) formed as possible, especially the $ . . .; so that it would not be 
in the remotest degree possible to confuse it with any of the species known to me.” I do not think that this 
passage can refer to decipiens, which Petersen erected on the genitalia alone (see below), as the references to 
the $ organs do not agree; but I wonder whether the euphrasiata- like ductus seminalis and bursa, which he 
ascribes to relaxata, may point to a false abdomen. 
E. decipiens Petersen. Tins and the other forms ( privata to mitigata) cited in Vol. 4 (p. 294) under decipiens. 
“ costisignata ” were similarly handled by Dietze, together with one (lutulenta) which I overlooked; but he 
was entirely non-committal regarding their status. Only the present species appears to have been examined 
anatomically and the life-histories of all remain unknown. The type of decipiens was unfortunately a good 
deal worn (ziemlich abgeflogen), but two larger, very relaxata- like from Transcaspia and Ladak (both 
unica, in the British Museum) are reported by Mr. A. H. Stringer to have closely the form of genitalia de¬ 
scribed and figured by Petersen: uncus curved, 2-pointed; valve running to a point dorsally, its ventral margin 
bent rectangularly at posterior end; vesica strongly scobinate, cornuti weakly chitinized, consisting of a curved 
plate and below it a smaller, posteriorly pointed piece; body-plate broad, not tapering hindward, anteriorly 
and posteriorly emarginate, the posterior excavation so strong as to leave two hooks which curve inward. 
E. lutulenta Dietze. “Intermediate between vicariata and adjunctata. Earth-grey, thus neither ash- lutulenta. 
grey nor clayey.” Mus-tag-ata, Yarkand, both sexes. 
