41 
severance of at least one very natural alliance. As I have already 
said, Lederer was the first to use this character, and he called the 
genus possessing it by the name of Lygris, Hb. Turning to Hiibner’s 
Verzeichniss, we find (p. 335) that he invented this name for pyropata, 
achatinata ( = testata, L.), populatet, and pyraliata ; the last of these 
does not possess the tuft, and was therefore removed by Lederer. But 
the genus precedin') Lygris in Iiiibner’s list, namely, Eustroma, also 
contained two of the species with tufts, for it consisted of mjfumata, 
prunata, silaceata, and reticulata, the second and fourth of which have 
the character in question ; and some subsequent writers (following 
Moore) have made reticulata the type of Eustroma and sunk Lygris, 
Led., as a synonym. Mr. Grote ( Proc. Ent. Soc., 1896, p. xiii.) con¬ 
siders that Moore had no right to choose this type to the detriment of 
Lederer’s Lygris. Without expressing an opinion upon the general 
question involved, I may point out that, according to Merton Rule 48, 
Stephens may be said to have constituted silaceata the type of 
Eustroma in 1850, long before Moore wrote, and on this score we may 
allow Lederer’s Lygris to stand, in so far as it is a natural genus. 
The British species in Lygris (Hb.), Led., according to this cha¬ 
racter, are the five which I have already mentioned, viz., reticulata, 
prunata, testata, populata, and associata. I have never had an oppor¬ 
tunity of examining the ova or young larvae of the first-named, nor 
can I find any published description which will help me; and although 
its superficial appearance suggests some misgivings as to whether it is 
as closely allied to the other four as they are to one another, yet I do 
not see any serious ground for challenging its position." The other 
four agree exceedingly well in all esentials, so far as I have studied 
them. 
Thus far, then, we are prepared to go with Lederer and Meyrick in 
their construction of this genus ; but when their diagnosis compels 
them to exclude pyraliata, anyone who has seen itseggand newly-hatched 
larva feels it necessary to enter a protest, and to pronounce reliance 
upon the pencil-tuft to have proved to be, in this instance, reliance 
upon a broken reed. As even the superficial appearance of the imago 
would have suggested, pyraliata is proved by egg and larva to be a very 
close ally of associata. 
Another character in “ Cidaria," which has been mentioned by 
authors, is the presence of anal spikes in the lame. Thus, for 
instance, Iiellins mentions, in writing of C. corylata ( Zool., 1864, 
p. 8,985), that it is singular among the British species of Cidaria in 
having but one anal point—implying, of course, that the double anal 
point is characteristic of the genus. It is worth while, therefore, to 
enquire what grouping would result from a consideration of this cha¬ 
racter, and I present the following tabulation : 
Larva with double anal point. — C. siterata, miata, truncata, im- 
manata, and fulvata. 
Larva with single anal point. — C. corylata. 
Larva without anal point. — C. suffumata, reticulata, silaceata, 
prunata, testata, populata, pyraliata, and associata. 
* Warren (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1893, p. 370) follows Moore in making this species 
the type of Eustroma, Hb., and says that it is distinguished from Lygris by the 
long black tuft of hairs on the underside of <r forewings, the tuft being short and 
pale yellow in Lygris. 
