37 
mnltutrifiuna have; this last species has been included by the author 
ot the Illustrations * * * § in the genus Larentia (Knbolia , Brit. Ent., pi. 707), 
with which it cannot be naturally associated!. 
Oporabia ddutata is characterised by very ample superior, and 
rather elongated and narrow inferior wings, and the masculine antennae 
bipectinated, the rays short.” 
O. multutngaria has less ample, but similarly formed, wings, with 
the masculine antennae bipectinated, the rays short.” 
“ l f<numa cambrlea has more compact wings, formed like those of 
Zerj/nthia, but the markings bear a greater resemblance to Oporabia or 
obophora (pi. 81). It is possible that the discovery of the female 
might le id to the settling of its affinities, but that sex is at present 
unknown.” 
The genus Vena si a has since been re-characterised by Guenee, 
Meyrick, Hampson, Hulst, B irrett, and perhaps one or two others; 
biu I do not know that any German systematist has yet recognised its 
distinctness from one or another of its generic allies. A historical 
sketch will show how much uncertainty has prevailed in regard to its 
exact position and affinities. Only about seven months after Curtis 
had erected the species, and evidently before the last parts of his work 
became known in France, B risduval (Gen. et lnd. Meth., p. 203) 
redescribed it as erutaria. He placed it in his comprehensive genus 
Eubolia, which embraces nearly all the Larentiids that have pectinated 
antennae; it falls into his sixth division, “alae fasciato-nebulosae,” and 
is placed next to scab r aria (didgmata, L.), so that he too, like Curtis, 
recognised some sort of affinity between these two}. s Twa years later 
Duponchel, in his Supplement (tom. iv., pi. 54, fig. 4), figures our 
species under Boisduval’s name (Eubolia erutaria) ; but in his 
Catalogue Met kodtque ” in 1845§, where he makes further divisions, it 
is transferred to his new genus Eusebia (Cat. Meth., p. 249), a move of 
no great importance, as the two genera are none too sharply defined, 
and cambrica does not agree with the characters of either. The type 
of Eusebia is, I believe, bipunctaria, Scbiff. 
In 1848 Freyer (A7m. Beitr., vi., pi. 528, fig. 5) again added to the 
synonymy, giving us Acidalia ncbulosaria as a supposed new species, 
allied to “Acidalia” (Lnbophora) halterata and carpinata, and in the 
same year the father of modern imaginal classification, Herrich- 
Schaffer (Si/st. Bearb., iii., p. Ill), placed it under Boisduval’s specific 
name of erutaria, along with candidata, si/lcata, luteata, lieparata, and 
pulchraria (blomeri), in his genus H gd relict \\, under the family Phi/tmne- 
* J. F. Stephens, Illustrations of British Entomology, Hauste.'lata. 
t Stephens’ genus Larentia comprises four species, clavaria ( = cervinaria), 
eherio/iadiata (= limiiatu ), hi/ unetaria and multistrigaria; he admits (id., p. 212), 
that the last is somewhat abeirant, but attacks Curtis’ association of it with 
Oporabia. 
f In later times Aurivillins (Nord. Fjar., p. 224) has placed it next to, and 
compared it with, didgmata ; like Lederer and Staudinger, he dots not separate it 
gerier cally from Cidaria. 
§ The title page bears date 1844, and the paper cover 1846, but the work was 
actually issued about September, 1845 ; vide Bibl. France, Seplember 20th, 1845, 
p. 490, Erichs. Dericbt for 1845, p. 275. 
|! Hydrelia, lib., Verz., p. 322, was erected for sylvata, Scbiff. =te*taceata, 
Don.; sole species and, therefore, type. In his earlier, and now little-consulted 
working out (Deutsch. Ins., p. It 6, 1840), Herrich-Schaffer wrongly called this 
genus Acidalia, but he was then unacquainted with cambrica and blomeri. 
