33 



772 Georgii, Gr. 



773 Antenn.ita, }VaIk. 



Cint'ivii, Riley. 



774 Laticincrca, Gr. 



775 Cinerosa, Gr. 



776 Unimoda, Lintn. 



777 Tepida, Gr. 



778 Baileyi, Gr. 



779 Viridipallens, Gr. 



780 Querquera, Gr, 



781 Lepida, Lintn. 



782 Pexata, Gr. 



783 Thaxteri, 6>. 

 .784 Capax, G. &* R. 



785 (?) Carbonaria, Harv. 



Lit liomia, Hubn. 



786 Germana, Morr. 



Calocampa, Steph. 



787 Nupera, Lintn. 



788 Cineritia, Gr. 



789 Curvimacula, Morr. 



CUCULLIIN^E. 



Cleoplsaaca, Boisd. 



790 Eulepis, Gr. 



791 Antipoda, Strk. 



CucuIIia, Schr. 



792 Convexipenrus, G. & 2?. 



793 Asteioides, Guen. 



794 Postera, Guen. 



795 Florea, Guen. 



796 Intermedia, Sfey. 



797 Speyeri, Lintn. 



798 Laetifica, Lintn. 



799 Luna, Morr. 



800 Serraticornis, Lintn. 



Matricaria:, Behr. 



NOLAPHANIN^E. 



Adipsophanes, Gr. 



801 Miscellus, G>. 



Crambodes, Guen. 



802 Talidiformis, Guen. 



NollapEiana, Gr. 



803 Malana, Fitch. 



804 Triquetrana, Fitch. 



805 Zelleri, O. 



806 Labecula, Gr. 



, Hubn. 



807 Erosa, Hubn. 



808 Luridula, Guen. 



809 Exacta, Hubn. 



Ptcrretholix, Gr. 



810 Bullula, Gr. 



Cliytoryza, Gr. 



8n Tecta, Gr. 



Alelia, Hubn.* 



812 Argillacea, Hubn. 



Xylina, Say. 



813 Hostia, Harvey. 



LI, 



LITOPROSOPIN/E. 



Jtoprosopus, Gr. 



814 Futilis, G. & tf. 



815 Confligens, Walk. 



EUTELIIN^E. 



Eiitcfia, Hubn. 



816 Pulcherrima, Gr. 



Mara$inaln, Gr. 



817 Ventilator, Gr. 



818 Histrio, Gr. 



INGURIN^E. 



Ingura, Guen. 



819 Abrostoloides, Guen. 



820 Delineata, Gtien. 



821 Declinata, G>. 



822 Pygmaea, Hitbn. 



823 Praepilata, Gr. 



824 Oculatrix, Guen. 



825 Flabella, Gr. 



* Prof. Riley doubts that Hubner's figure represents the Cotton Worm Moth, but the outline and 

 lor are accurate. The ''white d"ts " are not distinct in caught specimens, and the discal marks, 



color 



while inaccurately given by the engraver, are sufficiently suggestive of the real markings. It is dis- 

 ingenuous of Prof. Riley to quote a Bahia species as if he had the real Argillacea^ but hesitates to 

 make the identification. \Vhatdoes Hubner's figure cover, if not our species ? The figure of Albi- 

 linea, although much more doubtful, is accepted ; why is Argillacea rejected ? 



