triilae- —known to modern authors as Larmtiidae or Hydnoiuenidae. 
Since that time increasing intercourse between entomologists of 
different nationalities has enabled workers to unite these names, 
cainbrica, erutaria, and vebulomria : and although Doubleday, in his 
first Synonymic List, in 1849 (p. 17), wrongly gave precedence to 
Boisduval’s name, everyone, from Lederer onwards, has consented to 
abide by the law of priority, and to call the species cainbrica, Curt.— 
amended to cainbrica ria by those pedants who thought the Linnean 
Geometrid termination inviolable. Lederer, in 1853 (Die Spanner), 
merges Herrich-Schaffer’s iiydrelia in his great genus CiAaria, bat 
admits irregularities in neuration, and confesses he has no first-hand 
knowledge of the particular species, cainbrica. Guenee, in 1857, 
removes the little Iiydrelia group back to the vicinity of Acidalia 
(Acidulidae , Gn.), where it had been placed by the old authors on 
account of the wing-pattern ; but he does not give any valid reasons 
for this retrograde move. The neuration and the early stages are dis¬ 
tinctly not Acidaliid. He makes three genera, as is well known to 
our British workers, who have long been accustomed to his system, 
viz., Asthena, Hb., Stph. restr.*, Knpisteria, Bdv., Gn. restr.f, and 
Venusia, Curt. He admits that the last-named is difficult to locate, 
and has decided Larentiid affinities. Walker, in his British Museum 
lists, adopted Guenee’s Geometrid genera, including, of course, Venusia 
for cainbrica ; but in his own inimitably bungling way, he made a New 
York specimen, given to the museum by Edward Doubleday, the type 
of a new species, Tephrasia (!!) scitularia (List, xxi., p. 406, I860), and 
erected a near North American ally as l'ephrosia coniptaria (lac. cit.). 
Two other of his species are also cited under Venusia by Hulst, viz., 
Melantliia condensata (List, xxiv. [not xxv., as given by Hulst.], p. 
1273), and Cidaria inclinataria (List, xxvi., p. 1727). dhe former 
seems to be an aberration of the species known as lucata, Gn., 
and this species is, at least superficially, a Iiydrelia (close to testaceata, 
Don .—sylrata, Hb., as Guenee already remarks) rather than a Venusia. 
The latter (■ inclinataria), according to the type specimen, is a synonym 
of ferruyata, Cl., Linn., and thus has nothing to do with the genus 
before us. Walker’s description was so atrociously bad that Hulst 
cannot be blamed for having entirely mistaken its identity, although 
one learns that he discovered the truth on his subsequent visit to 
England, (bint. News, vi., p. 70.) 
The elucidation of the generic affinities of I . cainbrica and near 
allies in the imaginal stage must, as I have already indicated, be sought 
out in the writings of Herrich-Schaffer, Guenee, Packaid, Meyriek, 
and Hampson, though Herrich-Schaffer and Packard fail to recognise 
it as a genotype. Herrich-Schaffer (Syst. Beaib, iii., p. 110) defined 
his genus Hydrelia thus: “Small geometers, with small hindwings, 
angled in vein 4 (in cainbrica and testaceata very indistinctly), simply 
ciliated $ antennae, in cainbrica pectinated, hind tibiae in both sexes 
with four strong spurs, and wings marked with double or triple 
* This has page-priority over Hyarilia, Hb., but it was a “ n ixed genus,” 
and it is a pity that Herrieli-Schaffer’s usage was upset, especially as Hampson 
will make Acidalia neinoraria the t \ pe of Asthena. 
f This restriction is almost certainly wrong. I believe famnia, Esp., is the 
type of Eupisteria, Bdv.; in any case, Euchoeca, Hb., is the prior generic name 
for obUteratu. Hfn., and is employed by Meyriek. 
