41 
another good concise diagnosis of the genus Venusia in its imaginal 
stage; “Palpi slight, fringed with hair below and hardly reaching 
beyond the frons, which is rounded ; hind tibia? with two pairs of spurs. 
Forewing with vein 3 from before angle of cell; 5 from above middle 
of discocellular; 6 from wall above upper angle; 11 anastomosing 
with 7, 8, 9 and 10 to form the areole. Hindwing with vein 3 from 
before angle of cell; 5 from below middle of discocellulars, which are 
angled ; 6, 7 stalked; 8 anastomosing with 7 to near end of cell.” 
He divides the genus into two sections, the typical one, Venusia 
(unrepresented in India), in which the antennae of the $■ are bipectinated 
with short branches (= Venusia, Meyr.), and “Sect. 11, Antennae of 
$ minutely serrate and fasciculate” (= Discolo.eia, Warr.), In the 
latter he places four species, silckimmsis , Elw., and lilacina, Warr. (both 
originally described in Proc. Zool. Sue., 1893, under Hydrelia), 
obliquisiyna, Moore (described in 188-i, as a “ Cidaria ? ” ; made the 
» type of Discoloxia, Warr., in 1895), and dharmsalae, Butl. (Proc. Zool., 
Soc., 1883, under Ephyra ?). None of these four look to me very close 
to cambnca, and I should provisionally maintain the two sub-genera 
as genera, even if nothing can yet be added, by way of differentiation, 
to the secondary sexual character here adduced. 
The next year (1896) brings us to Hulst’s American revision in 
vol. xxiii. of the Transactions of the American Entomological Society. 
It Avas admittedly founded mainly on Meyrick, but I grieve to say that, 
so far as I have yet analysed it, it is a kind of mutilated Meyrick. 
Meyrick, in spite of the surprising results which he sometimes gets 
through having used too few diagnostic characters for his genera, is at 
least consistent, and acts up to his OAvn principle, that every generic 
diagnosis shall be applicable to that Avhich it is intended to include, 
and exclusive of all else. But Hulst, in abandoning this as an absolute 
principle, has abandoned nearly the whole of the value of such an 
artificed system. His manner of dealing with Venusia will illustrate 
this criticitm. His diagnosis ( loc. cit., p. 273) reads: “ Palpi rather 
short, somewhat recurved scaled ; tongue developed ; clypeus scaled, 
smooth; antennas of $ bipectinate, of ? filiform; thorax and abdomen 
untufted; hind tibas with all spurs present. Wings rounded, forewings 
12 veins, one accessory cell to beyond middle.” It will be seen that 
this is virtually an adaptation of Meyrick’s, with the addition of a little 
verbiage. Similarly Ave find on the next page that Euchoeca=Hydrelia 
has a diagnosis Avhich, Avhen critically examined, leaves only “ Palpi 
short scaled, slender, porrect ; antennae filiform, ciliate ” as differential 
characters ; this, again, is after Meyrick. But Avhen Ave examine the 
contents of the genera Ave find Hulst retaining all Packard’s Epirrita 
species in Venusia with the exception of dilutata, Avhich, as with 
Meyrick, is removed to Asthena, and also adding inclinataria, Walk.* ; 
in other words, his genus is composed of cambrica, Curt., duodecimlineata, 
Pack., perlineata, Pack., and inclinataria, Walk., and this constitution 
is practically maintained in Dyar’s recent list (p. 274). But, as 
I have already noted, none, excepting cambrica, conform to Hulst’s 
generic character “ antenna? of $ bipectinate,” and I am very dubious 
about the palpi, though I only possess one specimen of comptaria = 
duodecimlineata. How little validity there is in the line which Hulst 
This is an error, “ sec. specim. typ.,” not as has been shown above. 
