3l6 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS [July, 'll 



inclara. It is a little smaller than the normal examples, lacks 

 all reddish or mossy suffusions, and has the maculation a 

 clearer, more contrasting white and black or blackish. The 

 secondaries also are decidedly more blackish gray without the 

 distinct yellowish tinge. I cannot, however, draw any line 

 at present and call attention to the matter here for the benefit 

 of those who may be so situated as to work out the relation 

 of the two. As a race it may be called inconstans. 



Acronycta tristis n. sp. 



With all the normal maculation of inclara; but without contrasts, 

 the lines and markings just enough darker than the ground to be 

 easily made out. Ground color a uniform dark smoky ashen gray, 

 the pale annulus to the round orbicular being usually the only obvi- 

 ously relieved feature of the wing. Secondaries sub-transparent 

 white, soiled with blackish, tending to blackish in the female, the 

 lines and discal spot of underside showing clearly. Beneath with a 

 pearly lustre, blackish outwardly, both wings with discal spots and 

 conspicuous, more or less lunulate, extra-median lines. 



Expands 35-37 mm. = 1.40-1.50 inches. 



Habitat Canada VIII, 5; Cohasset, Mass., VII, i, 4; 

 Johnson City, Term., VII. 



Four males and two females, in fair condition. These 

 specimens had been included as uniform examples of inclara 

 in my collection ; but they differ obviously in lacking all trace 

 of the triangular dark shading, which is characteristic of that 

 species. 



This is not the hamamelis figured by Hampson, despite its 

 uniform dark tint. Hampson's figure shows correctly, the 

 small, round, white-ringed orbicular which is characteristic of 

 affticta and its immediate allies. In none of the forms of 

 the inclara series does this type of orbicular ever occur. 



Acronycta haesitata Grt. = = A. clarescens Gn. 



In the monograph I concluded that these two names re- 

 ferred to one species, basing my opinion on the best available 

 information as there set out. In 1900, when I saw the types, 

 I wrote myself in error, (Can. Ent. XXXII, 335) and con- 

 cluded that the species were distinct. Mr. Crete's species was 



