44 
ship. The position of silaceata in South’s list, however, between the 
two Lygrid species reticulata and prunata, also looks rather a happy- 
one ; and yet the newly-hatched larvae of snfumata and prunata 
suggest that they are almost as wide as the poles asunder. I shall, 
therefore, await the acquisition of the ova and newly-hatched larvae of 
silaceata with considerable curiosity and impatience. In the mean¬ 
time, I have permitted both it and snfumata —of which latter I have 
seen no very close ally, to retain their generic separateness. Should 
silaceata prove to be congeneric with prunata, it will form, with 
pgraliata, a second exception to the application of Lederer’s principal 
character for Lggris —the tuft on forewing of the male. 
It will be seen from the foregoing remarks that my knowledge is 
not yet sufficiently complete to justify my attempting a systematic 
revision of the whole “ Genus Cidaria,” in the sense in which I have 
used the term—the “ Tribe Cidariidi ” would probably be nearer the 
mark. Hut this need not deter me from placing before you such notes 
as I have, in order that some of the most conspicuous lacunas may the 
sooner and more easily be filled up. 
Chloroclysta siterata, Ilfii., and C. mi at a, L. 1 have at present 
nothing to remark upon these species, excepting that our continental 
friends (who are never happy unless they are trying to confuse two 
closely-allied species) seem hardly yet to have thoroughly satisfied 
themselves that they are specifically distinct ! C. miata is generally 
the rarer of the two on the continent, while in our island the reverse 
is the case. V iridi-fasciata, Goe/.e, iii., 3., p. 428, and virgata, Geoff., 
Knt. Paris., ii., p. 285, should probably be cited as synonyms to 
site rata, Hfn. 
Cidaria (?) corylata, Thnb. As already pointed out by Ilellins, 
the larva of this species differs in two respects from those of C. trun- 
cata, fulvata, &c. : 1st, in having a single anal point, and 2nd, in 
having the head bifid. I rather doubt whether it will stand as con¬ 
generic with them. The aberration of the imago upon which its 
popular name of the “Broken Bar” is founded should be distinguished 
as ah. ruptata, Hb. ; the type had the bar continuous. 
Cidaria truncata, Hfn., andC. imjianata, Haw. The differentiation 
of these two species has been so admirably worked out by Mr. Ilellins 
(see especially Zunl., 18G4, p.8,986; Ent. Mu. Mag., i., p. 1G5) that I 
have at present nothing to add on this score, and can only wish that 
his work were better known on the continent, where the greatest uncer¬ 
tainty prevails as to the two species ; occasionally a writer (I fancy 
Ilofner was one, but cannot lay my hands on the reference) will give a 
fairly good note on the differentiation of the imagines, but few, if any, 
seem to have given attention to the early stages. The specific nomen¬ 
clature of one or other of these species is in danger of a change, as 
there is an older name, citrata, L. (1761), menacing them. Werneburg 
has determined it for truncata, Hfn., and 1 can see no obstacle ; but it 
has to be borne in mind that he does not distinguish immanata, Haw., 
from that species. Schneider, in Siebke’s Enmn. Ins. Xore. (1876), 
&c., used the name for immanata, Haw. — presumably, as being the 
general Scandinavian representative of the allies in question. Unfor¬ 
tunately, the Linnean cabinet throws no light on the subject, as the 
only specimen there (labelled “ citrata ? ”) does not at all fit the des¬ 
cription, and seems to be a dwarfed and crippled $> of Cymatoylmra 
