89 
sociata), pyraliata, achatinata (= testata), fulvata, sagittata, prunata, 
suffumata, silaceata, russata, rnptata ( —conjlata), picata, aptata ( — oli- 
vala), miaria (=pectinataria), sororiata (—paliulata), derivata, berberata, 
rubidata, badiata, and sinuata. 
Boisduval, in 1840, placed 89 species in the genus, including all 
those which stand in South’s list under the name, with the exception 
of the first two, which were in Larentia ; and including also our 
Thera, Anticlea, Coremia (pars), Ypsipetcs, and one or two others. 
Duponchel, in his Catalogue four years later, retained nearly the same 
species as in 1830, but removed paliulata and one or two others, while, 
on the contrary, he introduced a few more recently discovered species, 
thus making up a total of 25. 
Both the last-named authors divided the genus into sections. 
Boisduval’s sections f, i f and H I M' correspond with Duponchel’s 
sections A and B, and these taken conjointly furnish practically the 
C id aria of Guenee, as published in 1857. In other words, Guenee 
very properly removed Duponchel’s group C and D, the latter being 
the beautiful little genus Anticlea , of Stephens; unfortunately, how¬ 
ever, he retained one species from group C, namely, picata, Hb., and 
it was reserved for our countryman Hellins to point out, from the 
early stages, how ridiculous was this union. 
Guenee’s characterisation of the genus Cidaria, as restricted by 
him, is worthy of quotation. He writes (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 456): 
“ Larvae elongate, smooth, slender, rigid, pedunculiform, not attenuated 
anteriorly, head as wide as neck, flattened in front, and often bifid on 
the crown, living on trees and bushes. Pupae of varied colours, 
spotted or dotted. Antenna) of $ filiform or pubescent, sometimes 
granulated. Palpi straight, often reaching beyond head, and in that 
case disposed as a beak, more or less elongate. Abdomen of the $ not 
at all conical, carinated, smooth, furnished with small lateral tufts, 
with pale spots or dashes on the incisions when it is dark, and valves 
well developed. Wings entire, smooth, velvety or silky, fringes inter¬ 
rupted or bicoloured ; the superiors with the tip pointed and some¬ 
times falcate, usually divided by an oblique dash which bounds a dark 
patch below, carrying sometimes at the base [i.e., of underside— 
L.B.P.] a pencil of hairs cut square ; the inferiors always shorter, 
rounded, not sharing the pattern of the primaries. Areole double.” 
[&c.] He makes seven groups (subgenera), four of which have names 
attached— Chloroclysta, Hb. ; Euphyia, PIb.; Cidaria “ properly so 
called ” (containing sufumata, reticulata, silaceata, and prunata), and 
Electra, Stph. (which should have retained the name Cidaria, Tr., 
according to Duponchel’s type-citation, for this group includes fulvata, 
together with the yellow Lygris species). 
That the genus is not even yet a natural one will be patent to every 
student of the group, and has, indeed, been recognised by most sub¬ 
sequent systematists. There are three species, at least, which are 
utterly out of place in it. Two of these are picata, Hb., and sagittata, 
Fb. ; the former of these has strong affinities throughout its stages 
with the so-called Melanippe * unangulata, Haw., which may, or may 
* Melanippe, Dup., is a preoccupied name (in Mollusca); surely even those 
(fortunately few) entomologists who still oppose priority-law in genera must see the 
evil of allowing homonymy in generic names in Zoology. Picata is the type of 
Euphyia, Hb. ( vide Hulst, Tr. Amer. Ent. Soc., xxiii., p. ‘283), alternuta, Miill. 
