Vol. Xxiv] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 253 



type or co-type appeared to be distinct from any other de- 

 scribed species that I know, so that the name will hold after 

 all. Smith wrote furthermore: "The species has been con- 

 fused with furcifcra, with which it really has very little in com- 

 mon." To the latter part of this statement I cannot agree, as 

 I think it could easily be mistaken for a pale creamy fur elf era. 

 Hampson's figure gives a good idea of it, but is really too 

 brown and highly colored. I have a female from Milwaukee 

 Co., Wisconsin, collected by Val. Fernekes, and a male bear- 

 ing the name of the same collector stood with the series at 

 Washington. 



Arsilonche colorada Smith. 



This was described in 1900 from two females from Glen- 

 wood Springs, Colorado. One of these is in the Washington 

 Museum and has been labeled "type" in Smith's own hand- 

 writing. It is not an Arsilonche at all, but is identical with Sir 

 George Hampson's type of Cca cirphidia, described from two 

 females taken by D'Urban at Santa Barbara, California (Cat. 

 ix. 280, 1910). I have a female specimen taken by Mr. T. 

 Spalding, at Vineyard, Utah, on Sept. I4th, 1909, which I have 

 compared with both types. The species has a rounded frontal 

 prominence, bare of scales, and a divided anterior thoracic 

 crest. Hampson mentions a spreading metathoracic crest also. 

 It certainly exists in my specimen, but is not nearly as promi- 

 nent as that shown in his woodcut. In the Washington collec- 

 tion I came across three greasy specimens, at least two of 

 them males, labeled Pullman, Washington, Aug. 3Oth-Sept. gth, 

 1898, standing mixed with Leucania heterodoxa, to the pale 

 forms of which the species certainly bears some superficial re- 

 semblance. That was in February, 1910. My specimen has a 

 small blackish spot at the lower angle of cell. Hampson's 

 specimens also have two similar spots just beyond the angle, 

 and one beyond upper angle. These are not shown in the 

 figure. Smith does not mention them in his description, nor 

 do my notes say that I noticed any in his type. It is to be as- 

 sumed that the other specimen referred to in his description 



