1896.] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 175 



shortly before the time of laying the eggs for the Summer brood 

 of larvae. The eggs of this brood can be laid, therefore, on both 

 deciduous and liveoaks with the happiest of outcomes. Perhaps 

 it is just this successful outcome of the Spring's essays in ma- 

 ternity that breeds in Phryganidia that unwarranted confidence 

 in the white oak that is annually attended with such fatal results 

 to the Autumn young. Phryganidia has already one serious 

 obstacle to its increase in the person of one Pimpla behrensii, 

 who makes a point of killing a large proportion of the Phry- 

 ganidia youth each year, and it will be well for our interesting 

 moth to refrain from too many imprudences if it wishes to hold 

 its own in the lively struggle for living. 



ON THE GENUS MELEOMA A. Fitch. The very interesting article by 

 Mr. Banks in the ENT. NEWS for March, 1896 (pp. 95, 96), induced me to 

 re-examine my material for this genus. I find two forms in four exam- 

 ples, all collected by the late H. K. Morrison and received by me from 

 him. One specimen from Mt. Washington was seen by the late Dr. 

 Hagen and bears his label, " O. signoreti;'''' another, from Mt. Wash- 

 ington agrees perfectly therewith, save that the antennae are paler; both 

 of these agree structurally with M. signoreti as defined by Mr. Banks. 

 A third from Colorado, and the fourth, from Mt. Washington, agree 

 structurally and otherwise with the description of M. slossoncz Banks, the 

 only discrepancy between them being that in the third the black line on 

 the sides of the face is continuous (as described), whereas in the fourth 

 this line is broken up into two separate spots one on the genae, the other 

 on the clypeus (such a variation is very frequent in Chrysopidae). These 

 two forms differ immensely in the structure of the apex of the abdomen, 

 and were unhesitatingly placed in my collection as the sexes of one spe- 

 cies; such also was Dr. Hagen's opinion according to notes he sent to 

 me. Now, however, Mr. Banks says he has the female of M. s/ossoncs, 

 and that it differs from Chrysopa chiefly in the antennae of that sex being 

 placed more widely apart. Amongst my numerous North American 

 Chrysopidae I can find nothing that will answer to this description. That 

 the two M. signoreti and the two I\f. slossoncz in my collection are re- 

 spectively of different sexes. is, I think, certain. In writing these notes I 

 would by no means imply an error of observation on the part of Mr. 

 Banks, but the facts are sufficiently suggestive to warrant further inquiry. 



While on the subject of North American Chrysopidae it occurs to me 

 that several species have been lately described as pertaining to my genus 

 Xothochrysa. I possess only one of these, from California. In 'fades it 

 differs somewhat from the Old World species, and more resembles Hy- 

 pochrysa, and it is probably on the strength of such a suggestion some- 

 where published by me in years gone by that this latter genus has been 

 considered North American. I think, however, its position is in Not ho- 

 chrysa rather than in Hypochrysa. According to the description, Chry- 

 sopa virginica A. Fitch, probably belongs to Nothochrysa. ROBERT 



McLACHLAN. 



