65 



Page 38. Brephos, Hubn. This term originates with Hubner, and is older than Archiearis, 

 Hubn., which Zeller proposed to restore. The species described by Boisduval from Cali- 

 fornia probably do not belong to this genus and I have not included them. From the 

 figure of Amphidasys Mlddendorfii, Lep. Sib., Tab. V., fig. 9, [ would refer the species to 

 Leucobrephos. I have not been able to re-examine Brephoidcs since my original notice of 

 the species. 



Page 39. Catocala, Schrank. In my original paper (1872) on the species of this genus I 

 identified and re-described the two kinds established by Guenee under the names ofVidua, 

 A. & S. (changed by Guenee to Viduala, because there was an earlier Vtdua in the 

 family) and Desperata. From a study of Abbot's figures, I showed that the Vidua of this 

 author was not that of Guenee, but probably Guene'e's Desperata. On the strength of these 

 observations Mr. Hulst proposed to restore Abbot's name for Desperata, and this with- 

 out any additional knowledge of the species figured by Abbot. In fact, there is no evi- 

 dence throughout Mr. Hulst's paper that any original sources had been consulted by 

 him ; the whole argument is carried on from traditional or unwritten opinions current 

 among the Brooklyn Entomologists, or dictated by a Pennsylvanian collector whose 

 prejudices replace proper judgment and knowledge. My own study of the speci s, pub- 

 lished ten years since, is also freely used without acknowledgement, while an appearance 

 of originality is shed over the whole, by inverting the usual sequence of the species and 

 giving some irrelevant remarks by way of preface before attacking, most unwarrantably, 

 my work in the genus. In the present case I adhere to my original decision with regard 

 to the names of the two forms. Mr. Hulst's proposal would make confusion ; Guen^e's 

 original objection to Vidua remains, while, until Southern material has been thoroughly 

 studied, Abbot's species must be a subject of more or less uncertainty. 



Page 40, No. 1186, for " Semirelecta " read " Semirelicta." id. The European Nupta is 

 given as American by some authors, but I have not yet recognized the species. If so, it 

 is the only form common to both continents, id. For " Guen." read " A. & S." as author- 

 ity to No. 1217. id. Insert No. 1217^ Antinympha, Hubn. id. Add " var. Hinda, 

 French," to Innubens. id. The description of Dejecta is> so vague that I have not included 

 the name. Ulalume, equally poorly described. I have included, on the strength of two 

 typical specimens in my collection purchased as such Irom Mr. Peck, and which appear 

 to me distinct. There is additional uncertainty cast over these two nam s by the re- 

 marks in the " Brooklyn Bulletin " which go to show that the original determination of 

 " Ulalume " has been changed, so that I am not certain which name is the correct one for 

 my material. I think that there is nothing gained by adopting any names proposed by 

 the author of these two, who has antedated his publications and has made an excessive 

 number of redescriptions, under new names, of previously published species. With the 

 above corrections, I think that this list of our species of Catocala is more accurate than 

 any yet published, and that the value assigned to the different names as designating 

 varieties or species will prove in most cases the true one. 



Page 42, for " Spargoloma " read " Spargaloma." 



Page 45, add No. " 44^ Textrinaria, G. &> J?." 



Page 45, add : " Caulostoma, Led. 62^ Occiduaria, Pack." 



Page 47. Byssodes Obrussata, Grote, Can., Ent, June, 1882, p. in, is the correct refer- 

 ence tor this species, also described in the June number of PAPILIO, under the name 

 " Cerussaria," which is a printer's error for " Obrussaria" of my Mss. No proofs of any 

 of my papers in that number of " PAPILIO " were furnished me, waich accounts for this 

 mistake, besides one or two others of lesser importance. 



Page 48. The diagnosis of Caterva is given by Dr. Packard on page 216 of his " Mono- 

 graph " under the name " Zerene, Tr." The type of Treitschke's genus is a European 

 moth not congeneric with Catenaria. 



Page 50, No. 305 for " Antumnata" read " Autumnata." 

 Page 50, No. 346, for " Ferrguata," read " Ferrugata." 



Names on this list not numbered (*'. e. in Hyphantria) are considered to be of doubtful 

 value. I have omitted from this list the" names of a few unidentified species of M. 

 Guene'e's ; chiefly, in the Noctuida, of those species described from Abbot's figures, which 

 latter are sufficiently coarse as to make the identification difficult without the plates at hand. 

 Many of Mr. Walker's are not included, as they must be doubtful until his types are worked 

 over. The species in Dr. Harris's correspondence are not included, as the data are not 

 sufficient to identify them at present. I have tried to include all else, and while I have 

 undoubtedly missed some names, I have purposely lett out a very few of different authors, 

 from their being described under genera not adopted here, or because no comparison with 

 known forms accompanied the published account of them. Some synonyms have also 

 been omitted, but this mostly in the case of well-known species, and for the purpose of 

 diminishing the bulk of the list. In the Geometritadcs and Tortricidce, I have given mainly 

 the synonyms occuring in American publications as of most importance to the student. 



