24 
far as I know the sole species (unless we add the North American georgii 
Hulst) is bicolorata Hufn., a species which I have always insisted 
(from oval and larval characters, etc.), has more relationship with 
Lid-aria or Thera, etc., than with the species oftenest associated with 
it; and I am glad to learn that Mr. Warren supports me in regarding 
it as sui generis. The residue fall into two distinct groups, that of 
hastata and that of tristata, rivata, galiata, etc., and Mr. Warren has 
called my attention to the fact that even on Meyrick’s own pet 
character of -neuration he could have avoided the error of lumping 
these, for the majority have the discocellular of the hindwing oblique 
and simple with the radial from about the centre, while the liastata 
section has it bi-angulate, the radial from the lower angulation. The 
neuration of liastata is figured by Packard ( Monor/r., pi. i., fig. 10, the 
forewing only), and by Grote (111. Woch. Ent., ii., p. 594, pi. i.). 
Until more is known of the Asiatic representatives in their early stages, 
I am well content to accept Warren’s composition of the genus, 
excepting kezonmetana Oberth.; from the specimens in our National 
Collection, as well as from Oberthiir’s figures, I think this comes 
nearer to (A anthorho'e) semenovi than to the present genus, and 
Mr. Warren now writes me : — “It is a long time since I had anything 
to do with hezonmetaria ; it should very likely be referred, like semenovi, 
to Xanthorhoe, but I have a sort of idea that there may be two species 
united under the name” (in. litt., November 27tb, 1905). 
A.s regards the synonymy of the genus, which Mr. Warren calls 
Eulype (Hb., \erz., p. 328), I follow the American authors (excepting 
Hulst, olim) in using the older Bhenmaptera (Hb., Tent., p. 2). In any 
case, the two genera are co-typical, both having undoubtedly the type 
hastata, and if the “ Tentamen ” should finally have to be rejected, there 
will be no difficulty in deciding that the right name is Eulype. The 
other (the tristata) section of Meyrick’s Plemyria is, as I have men¬ 
tioned, the Epirrhoe of Hiibner (type alternata Mull. = sociata Bork., 
fixed by Warr., Froc. Zool. Soc., 1893, p. 375, under the synonym of 
biriviata Bork.) ; although whether the male antennal differences are 
sufficient to warrant its separation from the closely-allied Xanthorhoe 
is another question, which need not now be considered. 
“Abraxas” wliitelyi Butl., which comes so near the genus Bheumap- 
tera, but which, absurdly enough, has still been left in Abraxas by 
Staudinger and Rebel, differs somewhat in its longer and narrower 
wings, its up-curved and blunt palpi, smooth and fiat forehead, antenme 
with angular joint, etc., but agrees with Iilienmaptera in neuration and 
general facies, and with some members of it in the yellow Abraxine 
body. 
The interesting species luctnata Schiff. = transversata Thnb. (nec 
Hfn.) = abduct a ta Moeschl. = lugubrata Stgr., next claims our attention. 
I have already mentioned that it impressed one of our British entomo¬ 
logists, Dr. Chapman, as an apparently close ally of hastata, and it has 
nearly always been placed beside hastata in our lists, while Parkard, 
the first to resuscitate Bhenmaptera as a genus, finds it a place therein. 
In addition to their general similarity, which is perhaps induced by 
similarity of habits, as Staudinger ( Stett. Ent. Zeit., xxii., p. 397) found 
them indistinguishable in flight, both these species produce parallel 
black varieties in Labrador, and elsewhere in North America (hastata 
var. gothicata Gn., and luctnata var. obductata Moeschl.). Probably the 
