THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 67 



doubtful exceptions of auxiliars and tessellata. Mr. Cockle has 

 shown me a specimen rather strongly divergent from any I had 

 previously seen, though in conjunction with the rest there are 

 indications that it probably belongs here. It is the specimen 

 referred to as gagates Grt. in the Kootenai List, and bore a label 

 on Smith's authority " balintis." Though it certainly suggests a 

 dull form of the latter, I think thanatologia the more probable. 

 Though I have mentioned that certain variations bear more or 

 less resemblance to several other species, and may possibly be 

 confused with them, the general relationship is perhaps really 

 closer to ochrogaster than to any other. The wing form is very 

 similar. In fact, as already stated, I believe males are frequently 

 inseparable superficially, though the larvse are very different. 

 The male antennae in ochrogaster are usually a little more 

 strongly serrate, but this difference is not reliable. The female 

 abdomen of thanatologia is, however, more depressed and laterally 

 cylindrical. Pwictigera has several nearer allies, though so far as 

 it is yet known, it is a dark brown little-marked form much after 

 the manner of perfida, but is a broader winged species, has rougher 

 scaling, and lacks the depressed abdomen in the female. It should 

 be remarked, however, that this latter character varies 'somewhat in 

 any species, according to the age at death, feeding, and degree of egg 

 development in the individual. Titiihatis Sm. ( = intrita Morr.) 

 is another species having a dull mahogany, poorly-marked form, 

 extremely like perfida in colour, but it has shorter and more trigonate 

 wings, differs in details of maculation, has more quadrate thorax 

 with heavier vestiture, and very distinctly longer serrations to 

 male antennae. The confusion of occasional females is quite 



excusable. 



Dr. Dyar refered his species to Porosagrotis on the strength of 

 its possessing stout tibial claws. The character is a variable one 

 throughout Euxoa, and is not a reliable guide. Smith stated that 

 the form of the mafe gienitalia was the only character which dis- 

 tinguished the genus. I admit not having so far examined them, 

 but surely a genus based on genital structure is scarcely valid. 

 The referejice to Chorizagrotis was based on the flattened form of 

 the abdomen, particularly in the female, and the narrow, elongate 

 primaries. Sir George Hampson treats the genus as a section of 



