40 
not, be strictly congeneric with ricata, Hb., Ac. ; the latter is quite 
unknown to me in nature, but, as Hellins and others have shown, its 
larva has not the remotest connection with Cidaria, “ in fact,” says 
Mr. Hellins (h’nt. Annual, 1864, p. 138), “ it is more like the larva of 
Pelurga comitata. Farren (Zool., 1864, p. 8,974) seriously proposed 
placing it with or near Kupithecia. Scarcely less ill-founded are the 
claims of sujfamata, HI)., to a place among the Cidarias, but as I have 
had its egg and newly-hatched larva 1 will venture a word further 
upon it presently. 
The British species, then, which are left us to consider, are the 
following: siterata, Hfn. ; miata, L ; con/lata, Thnb. ; truncata, Hfn. ; 
imrnanata, Haw.; suffumata, Hb.; reticulata, Thnb.; silaceata, Hb. ; 
prunata, L. ; testata, L.; pupulata, L. ; fulvata, Forst.; pyraliata, 
Fb. ; and associata, Bkh. These seem to have mostly (excepting 
suffumata) some degree of affinity, though they fall into two or three 
groups, which will certainly be “genera” in the narrowest modern 
sense. Stainton’s brief diagnosis (“ Imago; antenme of the male 
simple or slightly pubescent; forewings with the tip rather pointed ; 
hindwings rounded ; larva elongate, slender, not attenuated in front; 
head often bifid; feeding on trees or shrubs ; pupa of variegated 
colours”)'is founded upon Guenee’s, and would, I suppose, include all 
these species fairly well, although it would appear that the larva of at 
least one, reticulata, m attenuated in front, and I only know of one, 
corylata, with the head bifid. But as soon as one comes to more 
detail, whether it be in the egg, the new-hatched larva, or such an 
imaginal character as the pencil of hairs on the underside of the $ 
forewings (first used as a generic character by Lederer in 1853), one 
finds a difficulty in framing a definition which shall be sufficiently 
comprehensive, and withal sufficiently exclusive of elements which it 
is desired to exclude. 
Unfortunately, I have not yet had under observation the earliest 
stages of (siterata, miata, corylata, reticulata, or silaceata, and can 
only conjecture as to their probable affinities. I have also no detailed 
notes upon (’. truncata, of which I have not had the egg for several 
years ; but it will probably be a very long while before hair-splitting 
has proceeded so far as to lead to any doubt whether that be congeneric 
with C. imrnanata. 
Let us first glance at one or two superficial characters and cha¬ 
racteristics which have long been known in the “ genus,” and the 
groupings which have resulted from, or would be suggested by, such 
observations; and then let us endeavour to check these results by such 
embryological data as we possess. 
In the imago, one distinctive character has obtained almost world¬ 
wide currency through its acceptance by Staudinger, Meyrick, and 
others. r l his is the pencil-tuft of hairs on the underside of the fore¬ 
wings of the $ , and would appear a very convenient distinguishing 
mark but for two considerations : 1st, that many systematists very 
reasonably object to the foundation of genera upon secondary sexual 
characters; ‘2nd, that, as 1 shall show presently, it results in the 
( -tociuia , Bkh., - biriviata , Wrnbg., Whit., nec. Bkh.), the type of Kpirrhoe, 
lib. ( ride Wiirron, Proe. /not. Sue., 1893, p. 375); either or both may perhaps be 
regarded as subgencraof XunthorhoU, lib. (type implicate, Vill., = montanata, Bkh.). 
