39 
transverse lines (in obliterate only distinct beneath), in addition to 
which, however, they have the so-called half transverse line next the 
base. Frons broader than the diameter of the eyes ; palpi not visible 
from above, weakly scaled, with moderately distinct joints ; tongue 
strong antennae of 3 with distinctly marked joints, simply ciliated. 
Hind tibias about A longer than femora, with long protecting spurs, the 
median ones at §. Forewings : vein 6 arises from the angle between 
cell and areole, or even from the areole ; 7 from the apex of areole at 
at a point with 8 and 11 ; 9 and 10 arise out of 8, sometimes also 11 
(candidate), in obliterate 0 arises out of areole, 7 from its apex, 8 from 
ditto, 9, 10, and 11 from 7, in testaceata 11 separately from the areole, 
thus quite as in Minna marinate, only that the areole is not double. 
Hind wings: 5 exactly between 4 and 6, 6 and 7 on Ion// stalk. It 
will thus be seen that Herrich-Schaffer admitted cambrica to be an 
aberrant member of the genus, both in respect of the shape of the 
hindwing and the pectination of the 3 antennas. It should further 
be noted that he says on p. 711, under this particular species (erutaria, 
H.S., cambrica, Curt.), that “ the simple areole of the forewing speaks 
against its union with Lobophora or Larcntia also the vest of the 
neuration fits into the present genus, namely 6 and 7 separately from 
the areole, 8 and 11 out of 7, the latter (11) near its origin, 9 and 10 
one after the other out of 8. Neuration of hindwing quite as in 
Cheimatobia.” Apparently at one time he thought of placing cambrica 
in ImbopUora, and by an oversight he has omitted to delete °the refer¬ 
ence ; for we find under that genus (p. 178), in speaking of the female 
antennai, “ in cambrica pectinated.” 
Guenee adds little of critical value, and his diagnosis of I'ennsia 
need not be quoted ; he knows no other species besides cambrica, and 
his grounds for removing it from Asthma (Hiplrelia , H.8.) are that 
“ the antennae, the form of the frons, the neuration, the pattern of the 
wings manifestly distinguish it.’ He does not say what is the 
neurational distinction, nor does he even indicate the neuration of his 
Aathena ; but under I 'c nasi a he mentions that the areole is simple! 
and that veins 7, 8, 9, and 10 arise from a common stalk. 
Packard, as we have seen, boldly unites cambrica with ililntata 
under Hiibner’s “ Tentamen ” name of Epirrita, which belongs to the 
latter. Apparently he is unwise enough to diagnose the genus from 
cambrica, the neuration of the forewing of which is figured at plate 1, 
fig. 4; and he does not notice that the areole of ililntata is double]:, 
for he gives the fact that “ there is but one subcostal cell ” as a generic 
distinction from Glancopten/x. He makes much of the bulging, 
rounded frons, using it even in his Synopsis of the Genera on p. 46 § ; 
* This a curious assertion, as Herrich-Schaffer a lows sexulata (genus 
Mystic.optera, Mevr.) a place in the genus Lobophora and places several of the 
members of Meyrick’s Plentyria in Larentia ; yet these, too, have the areole 
simple. 
+ This separates it from candidata, which Guenee shows as the “ type ” of 
Asthma, but others of his Asthenae have the areole double (genus Eucltoeca of 
Meyrick, Ilydrelia of Hampson). 
] A figure of the neuration of the costal part of the forewing of Epirrita 
(Oporahia) ililntata will be found in Poppius’ Finlands Phytometridae, Tab. xiii., 
No. 130 (Act. Soc. F. F. Fertn., viii., No. 3). 
§ Snellen also alludes to this in his interesting article, “ Aanteekening over 
Gidnria procellata, Wien. Verz.,” in Tijd. Eat., xxxii., pp. 207 et seq., where he 
further touches on its palpi and neuration, but does not advocate a generic 
separation, being averse to a multiplication of genera. 
