THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 45 



A. spec, 1, female, from Wise, similliina A. Bilbergi, dififert tar- 

 sis anticis. In Ent. M. Mag., xiv., p. 250, Mr. Meade has men- 

 tioned a species closely resembling A. liigubris Meig. This species 

 is not given in his list. 



Genus Mydaea Desv. (Spilogaster p. unspotted.) 



8. Unlike any species I know • i female, Arctic Amer. 



9. Corresponds to the description of M. floricola Desv. ; i female, N. 



Y. This is Spilog. nrhaiia Loew, O. Sack. Catal., 3, male and 

 female, in Loew's coll. from Br. Amer. and Conn. ; I cannot com- 

 pare M. floricola, but the specimen No. 9 agrees with the European 

 type of M. urbana sent by Mr. Meade. 

 10. Male, Canada; 11 females and 12 males, Western N, Y. ; 13 

 females, Catskill Mts., N.Y.; 14 males, Canada; 15 males, Arctic 

 Amer. Unlike any species known to me. No. 12 seems to be 

 identical with A.flexuosa Loew, male and female, from Sitka. 



16. Very similar to M. flaveola Fall., but has the external transverse 



vein straight instead of curved ; 4, male and female, from White 

 Mts., N. H.; Quebec, Can.; Huds. Bay Terr.; Catskill Mts., N.Y. 

 In Loew's coll. labelled A. diaphana ( Linmophora diaphana O. 

 Sack. Catal., p. 166); 7, male and female, from N. Hampsh.; Me.; 

 Brit. Amer.; the specimens are identical with European types of 

 A. diaphana sent by Loew. 

 id. a. An imperfect species, very like A. varians Zett.; i male, Canada; 

 abdomen wanting ; agrees well with one European type sent by 

 Loew. 



Genus Spilogaster Macq. (spotted.) 



t Legs black. All species unlike any known to me. 



17. 3, male and female. Ky.; Lake Super. — 18; i male, Huds. Bay 



Terr. — 19; i female, Huds. Bay Terr. — 20; i male, no loc. 

 21. I female, Huds. Bay Terr. — 22; i male, no loc. 



t+ Legs wholly or partly yellow. 

 23. Differs from any species I know, but appears to be the analogue of 



6". uliginosa Fall. ; 2, male; R. I. 



I have compared European types of 5". uliginosa sent by Mr. 



Meade and Loew, but they differ so strikingly from No. 23 that I 



am unable to say why they are analogous. 



