Rovartani Közlemények (Folia Entomologica Hungarica 3/3-4. Budapest, 1950)

to my observations, constant and this ensures distinction in the two species without further examinations. The diversity of the feeding plants, the disequal biotops, the biological differences and the morphologic characters were in themselves enough to prove the autonom specificity of hungariea. Yet as T o m a 1 a in spite of all these, though knowing but not considering them to be enough, and based by the opinion of unknown arguments and an unknown expert, described hungariea as a variety, I had to find some specific character that he overlooked or did not know. I found this in the genital armature of the males. I had to suppose that neither Tomala nor others examined it yet, as I could not find any trace of it. The male genital armature of Aegeriidae is comparatively simple. Yet it affords very good specific characters to distinguish the respective species from each other. I have examined the armatures of hungariea and empiformis males in series and observed the following differences. 7 8 fig. 5—8. 5. = Male genitalia of Ch. hungariea. — 6. — Male genitalia of Ch. empiformis. — 7. = Valve of Ch. hungariea. — 8. = Valve of Ch. empiformis. The armature of hungariea (fig. 5) is extended, elongate. That of empiformis (fig. 6) is more sturdy, broader. This different aspect is caused by the differences in the valves. The valve of hungariea (fig. 7) is long, narrow. Its tip ends in an acute angle made more pointed by long hairs. The valve of empiformis (fig. 8) is short, broad. Its tip ends are almost in a right angle. The hairs on it are short, with a blunting effect on the tip. There are some other smaller differences in other parts of the genital armatures (in the tegumen and uncus), as in the positions of the hairs partly covering the valves; but the de-