48 
generic right. Again, it is equally possible—perhaps even probable— 
that none of the other species are strictly congeneric with fulvata, to 
which I have already shown the generic name Cidaria to rightly 
belong. In fact, whereas one comprehensive genus Cidaria might 
possibly be made to include siterata, miata, corylata, truncata, immanata, 
fulvata, and bicolorata, if not even also variata and its allies, we may, 
on the other hand, ultimately find it needful to erect as many as six 
genera in the group :— 
1. siterata and miata (= Chloroclysta). 
2. corylata ( = ?*). 
3. truncata and immanata ( — Dysstroma);). 
4. fulvata (= Cidaria). 
5. bicolorata ( = ?) 
6. juniperata, cocjnata ( simulata), variata, and firmata. J { — Thera). 
Or, again, various unions amongst these may be effected, in which 
case, of course, it will be quite easy to fix the right generic name 
according to the law of priority. I fancy there is none available for 
either corylata or bicolorata. 
In the said Fauna list I have divided the remaining species (larvae 
without anal points) into four genera, only three of which, however, I 
really know well, viz., Euphyia, Lampropteryx, and Lyyris (?). The 
first I have already declared to be out of our scope for this evening. 
Of the last, I may explain that the query was meant to refer, not to 
any doubt of the generic position of L. prunata, but to the validity of 
the separation of this genus from the preceding Eustroma (prior name). 
I much regret that I have never yet obtained the ova of the common 
silaceata, and am altogether in doubt as to the affinities. Lederer has 
it far enough away from Lyyris, namely, between the Hydriomena 
(Ypsipetes ) section of Cidaria and C. corylata, which immediately 
precedes the Anticleas ; thus it is also separated, in his system, from 
another possible ally, suffumata, which he places amongst our Ochyria 
(Coremia ). Of suffumata, Haworth quaintly observes : “ Pnpcedenti 
(i.e., silaceata) simillima ut ovum ovo.” In the natural significance 
of that proverb, one would feel inclined to challenge his comparison ; 
but they are certainly a good deal more alike than the eggs of, say, 
Pierids and Skippers, and it seems to me possible that their consider¬ 
able superficial resemblance may be also indicative of a real relation- 
* Is made the type of Electra, Steph., by Curtis in 18B6, but this is not only 
a preoccupied name, but also “ invalid as not containing the type of the concep¬ 
tion.” For convenience of reference, I here give some other type-fixations which 
belong to the present group. Westwood, Gener. Synops. (1840), is responsible for 
the following: Harpalyce, typ e fulvata; Polyphasia, type centumnotata (= truncata ); 
Lampropteryx , type suffumata ; Steganolophia, type prunata ; Euthalia (homonym), 
type miata Thera, type juniperata. Hulst, Tr. Am. Ent. Soc., xxiii. (1896), gives: 
Chloroclysta, type miata; Dysstroma, type truncata; Euphyia, type picata; 
Com/then, type juniperata; and others which either support Westwood’s or are 
inadmissible because in conflict therewith. Grote ( Proc. Ent. Soc., 1896, p. xii.) 
gives Lyyris, type populata. 
f I believe Hulst to be right, according to Hiibuer’s diagnosis, in giving to 
Dysstroma, Hb., the type truncata ; but those who consider that Stephens’ genus 
Polyphasia “ took out” truncata (III. Haust., iii., p. 227) before Thera “ took out ” 
the rest (ibid., p. 271), would, I suppose, prefer to follow our National Collection, 
conserve Polyphasia, and sink Thera as a synonym of Dysstroma. 
I The pectinated an ten me have induced Lederer to place this in a different 
section from its congeners—as I believe them to be. 
