THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 281 



with many short, darker brown strigre ; a dark brown tinge along dorsal 

 line, the edges of wing cases and the points over the eyes. Between the 

 thoracic and abdoiiiinal prominences, along the thorax laterally and back 

 of the eyes are large yellov/ish-white metallic patches. Length, 23 mm. ; 

 width through wing-cases, 9 mm. 



Food-plants. — Species of oak ( Qicercus.) 



ON CATOCALA FLEBILIS AND C FRATERCULA. 



BY A. R. GROTE, A. M. 



In describing C. retecta and C.Jiebilis, it appears, from Mr. Hulst's 

 statements, that I included certain dark shaded specimens, one or more 

 of retecta, wnd&v flebilis. Mr. Hulst says : — "The typical specimens in 

 Phila. cover both species." This may be true, as also that Mr. Strecker 

 figures a dark shaded retecta as flebilis. I have not his work. But 

 there is no doubt in my mind as to what was flebilis, and there is no 

 excuse for Mr. Hulst's renaming my species as luctiiosa. Considerable 

 material of flebilis from various sources was named by me at the time 

 and notably for Mr. Angus, and there is no doubt as to my original 

 intention. I noticed from the first the brown shade on primaries of 

 flebilis, and imagined it might be accidental on my specimens and due to 

 cyanide, as then we were hearing for the first time of the action of that 

 poison on colour. 



Without the slightest reason, Mr. Hulst quotes fratercula as the 

 species intended by Guenee as micronympha. Under sancta, Mr. Hulst 

 writes : — " Mr. A. G. Butler writes me this latter is coiinubialis, Guen., 

 but the description does not fit, and it was described from a drawing, and 

 so the name does not in any case hold." Without agreeing, this state- 

 ment seems to me to apply to the use of micronympha for fratercula, 

 and, in any event, I hope entomologists will not adopt these changes. Mr. 

 Hulst has adopted, without acknowledgment, most of my corrections of 

 his former work on this genus, as to the value of certain species and 

 varieties, and one or two points of difference may be ultimately decided 

 in his favour. I am, however, of a very strong mind upon two points, 

 namely, that C. residua (photographed by me in Bull. Buff Soc. Nat. 

 Sci.) is a perfectly distinct species, and that the same is true of Meskei. 

 Secondly, that my genus Euparthenos (Ann. Lye.) is a valid genus, and 

 the species E. nubilis structurally different from Catocala. I reserve until 

 another occasion a criticism of Mr. Hulst's paper. 



