May, '02] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 143 



that the species belongs to' Psychophora, but is geometric! in 

 character. 



Specimens of Psychophora J\i.<ci<itn were submitted to Drs. 

 vSiniih :nul Dyar and tlie former thought they were Bombycid>> 

 and the- latter Xoctuids. From some recent correspondence 

 with Dr. Smith it would appear that what Dr. Hulst had 

 under Psychophora were all true Geometridae, as Dr. Smith 

 says: 'There is no specimen in the Hulst collection that 

 agrees with the insect that you gave me." 



The genus l''syclwphora was proposed and described by Kirby, 

 and later more fully described by Curtis, and there is no doubt 

 about the genus or what insects were meant, as they are ven 

 characteristic generically, at least. 



I am inclined to agree with Dr. Smith that Psvchofrhora 

 represents a Bombycid genus and that all the mix-up in the liter- 

 ature has been brought about by considering Psychophora sabini 

 a geometric! moth. 



See Pagenstecher, Fauna Arctica, Bd. II, p. 323, 1901. 



Remarks on Tephronota Ruficeps and Description of 



a New Species. 

 BY CHAS. W. JOHNSON. 



Tephronota ruficeps van der VVulp. 



Hernia ruficeps v. d. Wtilp, Tijdschr. v. Ent. IX, 156, pi. Y, fo. ii. 

 Tephronota hiiinilis Loew, nionogr. etc., Ill, i2r, pi. YIII, f. 24, 

 1873- 



In his monograph Loew did not adopt van der \Yulp' s name 

 because it was preoccupied by Fabricius. But as Baron < )sten 

 Sacken has stated: "This cannot be sustained, as neither of 

 the two genera named J/cniin or Tcphnniola existed at the time 

 of Fabricius." Nor is there an older ruficeps referable to this 

 genus. 



The species seems to be confined to the States bordering on 

 the Atlantic from New York to Florida. It has also been 

 collected by Belfrage in Texa-. Specimens were taken at 

 Georgetown, Kla., May 9, [6 ; Tit'ton, Ga., June i i. Pilate >: 

 Boykins, \"a., June 10 ; Jamcsburg, July 4, and Bucna X'ista, 



