THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 191 



Museum. It was described in 1852 from " U. S. A." It is the common 

 and widely distributed species hitherto everywhere known as Hadena 

 suffusca Morr., described twenty-three years later, of which, however, I 

 have not yet seen the type. Assuming suffusca to have been correctly 

 identified, a^ia Gn., which has smooth eyes, and is therefore not a 

 Taeniocampa, has priority. 



The next name up till now in the synonymy of aiia being hibisci Gn., 

 that must be used for the common eastern Tgeniocampa. I have not seen 

 the type, but merely assume that it has been correctly referred, not to 

 alia, but to the species we have mistaken therefor. Hampson's figure of 

 alia is not of the type, but the species I now call hibisci. Whether 

 Guenee intended the name alia to apply to the species which bears the 

 type label may be open to question. I have not seen the description, but 

 am guided by the type. Though the Taeniocampa sometimes resembles 

 alia in colour, and they have a similar subterminal line and shade, they 

 can scarcely be confused by anyone acquainted with both, even apart 

 from generic characters. From the foregoing it follows that Holland's 

 figure, oi alia should be called hibisci. 



In 1874 Dr. Harvey, or more probably perhaps really Grole, under 



Harvey's name, described /<z^//?^a from Sanzalito, Calif., comparing it to 



alia, undoubtedly meaning thereby, not the Hadena, hwX. hibisci. Harvey's 



name has also been wrongly applied to a very common and widely 



distributed British Columbian form which intergrades in Alberta with 



hibisci. His type is a female in the British Museum, where there are four 



other similar Californian specimens, and one from Vancouver Island. 



Other U\iQ pacifica that I have seen are, one in my own collection from 



Oakland (which is close to the place repeatedly called " Sanzalito " in 



Hampson's Catalogue, though I believe Sancelito is correct) ; one in Prof. 



Smith's collection labelled " Canada"; and a male from Victoria, B. C, in 



the Neumogen collection at Brooklyn. I may have seen one or two more, 



but can find no note of them at present. It is evidently a very rare 



species. It is characterized by the paler colour, obsolescent orbicular, 



narrow, somewhat constricted reniform, contrasting with the pale, even 



ground, but not conspicuously pale ringed, and a slight w in the s. t. line, 



which is preceded by a narrow dark band of even width. 



The common B. C. form hitherto passing 2,% pacifica, as it intergrades 

 with the eastern hibisci in Alberta, I cannot recognize as distinct, though 

 on the B. C. coast it is certainly a well-marked local race. In view of this 

 fact, and as it has for years passed as a species, being larger and far 



