42 
draws between his Venvsia and Ewhoeca is still further shown by the 
fact that he places lurata, Gn., in the latter, but leaves its synonym 
condensate, Walk., and its close ally yerlmeata, Pack., in Venusia L 
Other species which have at one time or another been placed in 
Vena si a are not numerous, and I can easily recount all of which I 
have any knowledge. Venusia chrysocilia, Hmpsn. (111. Ley. !let., 
viii., p. 124), does not belong here, as its author has recognised in his 
maturer work; it is a Chrysocraspeda. Oberthiir’s four Tibetan 
species (F.t. Ent., xviii.), to which he gave the highly classical names 
of tchraria (p. 29, pi. iii., fig. 32), nay aria- (p. 30, pi. iii., fig. 30), laria 
(p. 30, pi. iii., fig. 34), and kioudjrouaria (p. 31, pi. iii., fig. 46), all 
from Ta-Tsien-Lou, look as though they might all be Venusias in sensu 
Hmpsn., although Leech (Ann. May. Nat. Hist., xix., p. 661, 189) 
transfers naparia to Larentia (sens. Hmysn.), doubtless with some good 
reason, leaving only the other three to Venusia (loc.cit., xx.,pp. 83-84), 
but adding a new species, V. undularia, Leech (lac. cit., p. 83) ; but in 
any case they will all go to Harnpson’s section ii., which I prefer for 
the present to call Discoloxia, Warr., bon. gen. To the same section 
(or genus) belong Hampson’s new Tibetan species (Journ. Bomb. Soc. 
Nat. Hist., xiv., p. 647), viz., Venusia yallidaria, V. eonisaria, and V. 
ochrota. I may mention also that Cidaria semistriyata, Christ. (Bull. 
Muse., lv., 2, p. 99), is spoken of by Warren in Nov. Zool., vol. ii. (in 
erecting his new species, Discoloxia megaspilata), as “ V. semistriyata, 
Christ.,” which — if it be not a mere lapsus — no doubt means Venusia 
semistriyata; but, as I do not know the species, 1 have no idea how 
close it may come to V. cambrica. 
The result of my researches, summed up, is that I cannot find a 
single known species which is close enough to Venusia cambrica to 
satisfy me that it is really likely to be congeneric with it according to 
our modern restricted ideas of genera ; but that if it has any very close 
relatives, they are probably the rest of Hulst’s American “ Venusias,” 
(which would necessitate a reconstruction of Meyrick’s diagnoses), or, 
much less likely, Meyrick’s three New Zealand Venusias ; and that 
there is also a good deal of affinity with Discoloxia, Warr., and some 
with Euc/ioeca, Hb. (type obliterata, Hfn.), Hydrelia, Hb. (type 
testaceata, Don.), Asthma, Hb. (type albulata , YL{n., = candidate, Schiff.), 
and Ejnrrita, Hb. (type dilutata, Schifi’.). I am inclined to view it as 
a specialised development of Hydrelia rather than as “a collateral 
branch from the same stock ” (Meyrick), but the difference in the 
point of view is very slight, and tbe whole subject is largely speculative. 
Distribution. — The range of Venusia cambrica is rather wide, 
considering how local it generally is, and how scarce in many parts. 
Staudinger’s Cataloy (3rd edition, p. 296), gives northern Britain, 
central Scandinavia, northern Russia (excepting the Polar region), 
central Germany and eastern central Europe (in the lower mountains), 
the Alps (yro yarte), Pyrenees, Altai, Japan, North America. I fancy 
it may be commoner in the last-named than in tbe Old World ; it 
seems to turn up freely enough in American collections, and if I 
remember aright, our member, Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, has told us that 
* I notice that Mr. Warren, in arranging the National Collection, placed only 
cambrica and 12-lineata in Venusia, making comptaria a Hydrelia ( = Euchoeea, 
Meyr., Hulst) ; the antenmc of 12-lineata, even if it be not really a synonym of 
comptaria, are decidedly not “ pectinated.” 
