April, '07] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 147 



Hulst, the subbasal and outer transverse anterior lines being 

 a little more distinct than in the type of occidens." 



I have concluded, after close study, that curvilinea is distinct 

 from occidens for the following reasons : the outer transverse 

 anterior line in cnnilinca is single, defined and edged inwardly 

 by a whitish zig-zag narrow line, while in occidens the cor- 

 responding line is diffused, geminate and broad, becoming 

 faint and the component parts merged together toward the 

 center and inner margin of the wing, the whitish zig-zag line 

 being wanting. In occidens a line beginning at the center 

 of the costa and from thence outward and inward to center 

 of wing is altogether absent in cnn-ilinca. The outer line 

 in both species is more or less broken and ill-defined, but at 

 the costa it is double in cnrrilinea and single in occidens. 

 These points are sufficiently strong to hold the species distinct 

 in my opinion. 



Hydriomeua amorata Hulst. 



Of the two types, one, a female, is probably Petrophora 

 defcnsaria Guen. The other, which has both anteniue and the 

 abdomen missing, but is otherwise in very perfect condition, 

 is probably also a female. This is a different insect from 

 dcfensaria, the entire median area of the primaries, between 

 the intradiscal and extradiscal lines, being a bright reddish- 

 brown, deeper in the center. There is not even a tendency 

 in this direction in any specimens of defcnsaria I have ever 

 seen. The name amorata will therefore hold, and while its 

 generic disposition is a little uncertain, the character of the 

 wing markings would place it in Pctrophora. 



Somatolophia nmbripennis Hulst. 



( )f this species Dr. Dyar says: "The single 9 type is 

 Aids haydcnata Pack." This conclusion, Rev. Geo. W. Taylor 

 would not accept, because in defining the genus of which 

 nmbripennis is type, Hulst gave characters which were pos- 

 sessed by the male only, and some of which were at variance 

 with the genus Aids. In this he was correct; umbripennis is 

 not an Aids, and therefore not havdcnata; and while the 

 character of the markings are precisely the same, the general 

 color and the structure are quite different. I might say. 



