72 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [April, 



this was in store for me. Early in 1889, business led me to Bos. 

 ton, and, as usual, I visited my friend, Mr. Samuel Henshaw, of 

 the Boston Natural History Society. He showed me the volume 

 of original drawings by Abbot, presented to the Museum by the 

 late Dr. Asa Gray, and on plate 108 of the series I found excel- 

 lent figures of both $ and 9 of the Cossid, with colored figures 

 also of the larva and pupa. But the 9 is no other than the 

 beautiful moth described by the late Dr. James Bailey as Cossula 

 magnified, ("Papilio," vol. ii, p. 93, 1882). Dr. Bailey's de- 

 scription, with a colored figure of and 9 and of the pupa, 

 was republished in Bulletin No. 3, Division of Entomology U. S. 

 Department of Agriculture, 1883, but Dr. Bailey has undoubtedly 

 fallen into an error in figuring what he calls the $ , as the speci- 

 mens in his cabinet were both females, and in fact none but fe- 

 males have been known until the discovery of the identity of the 

 species with C. basalts, while so accurate an observer as Abbot 

 would not be likely to be confounded in the species. He gives 

 it as one especially familiar to him, as evidenced by his draw- 

 ings of the early stages. The antennas are heavily pectinated in 

 both sexes and the neuration would appear to give the species 

 generic rank, so that Dr. Bailey was undoubtedly right in form- 

 ing a new genus for its reception. The synonymy will, thereiore, 

 stand thus: 



Genus COSSULA Bailey. 



Cossits Walk. 

 Inguromorpha Hy. Ed\v. 



C. basalis Walk. $ B. M. Cat. p. 1523, 1856. 



Cossula magnified 9 Bailey, Papilio, vol. ii, p. 93, 1882. 

 Inguromorpha S/ossonii Hy. Edvv. Ent. Am. vol. iii, p. 183, 1888. 



The females have been taken by Mr. A. Koebele, near Tala- 

 hassee, and by Dr. Wittfeld at Indian River, while Mrs.. Slosson's 

 % specimen was obtained at Jacksonville at the electric light. 

 The bears a somewhat superficial resemblance to the same sex 

 of C. querciperda. I should like to add that I am convinced 

 that the 9 type specimen of C. plagiata in the British Museum 

 is nothing more than Robinicz 9 , but that C. populi Walk, is a 

 very distinct species, differing from any I have seen elsewhere. 



