Vol. xxii] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 317 



as I had it; but darescens Gn., I concluded, was really the 

 species that had been called so by Mr. Grote, and for which I 

 had resurrected pruni Harris. This "pruni" is a common 

 enough species, I had dozens of bred specimens, and I thought 

 I knew it under all circumstances. 



Hampson cites, in consequence, A. darescens Gn., : : pruni 

 Harr. (Smith) ; A. hacsitata Grt., : : darescens Sm., nee Gn. 

 He figures darescens and haesitata on PI. CXXIV, figs. 29 and 

 21, respectively, apparently from the types, and of a certainty 

 neither of these figures nor the descriptions can possibly re- 

 fer to pruni Harr., which is the species figured and described 

 by Hampson as hast a Gn. 



In looking carefully over my series of hacsitata, I have ex- 

 act duplicates of the figures of both haesitata and darescens, 

 and find it possible to separate the series passably into two 

 forms, satisfying the requirements of Hampson's tables and 

 descriptions. The figures are characteristic, and I do not see 

 how an error is possible ; but if Hampson is right in his identi- 

 fication of these two forms, then my original conclusion that 

 hacsitata Grt. : = darescens Gn., is correct. 



That would make necessary an admission on my part that 

 with two specimens of a form so well known to me as haesi- 

 tata, I positively declared one of them to be a distinct and 

 equally well known other species, and that admission T am not 

 ready to make. Hampson refers to two females from Tren- 

 ton Falls as the types of darescens, and that is in accord with 

 Guenee's record. The female type of haesitata is from Penn- 

 sylvania. In my notes I refer to a "type" of darescens. and 

 a possibility remains that the two Guenee specimens are not 

 specifically identical. The two certain points are that dares- 

 cms Hamns. : r hacsitata Hamps. and that darescens Hamps. 

 is not pruni Harr. , 



Acronycta hamamelis Gn. 



Hampson lists this as a good species, closely allied to afflicta, 

 based on one male and one female. The figure is based on the 

 type, and from my recollection and notes it seems to be accu- 



