THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 331 



markings less distinct," which, whilst it applies to my Finland si)ecimen?, 

 as compared to my British series oi f estiva, mostly t'rom Scotland, is not 

 in accordance with Treitshke's description. Moreover, the Finland male 

 has antennte similar to those of both calgary and dislocaia, viz., ciliate 

 only, with the joints scarcely marked. The antennas of my series of 

 f estiva, fifteen in number, are serrate-fasciculate, though not strongly so. 

 These are nearly all lighter in colour than my series o'i calgary, but besides 

 the antennal difif^rences and slightly rougher vestiture of the British speci- 

 mens, I see no structural differences. Hampson places calgary in Agrotis, 

 and /estiva m Episilia, but I cannot see that a generic separation is 

 warranted. In the tables Episilia is diagnosed as ''head and thorax 

 clothed with hair only," and Agrotis, '"head and thorax clothed with hair 

 and scales and with more or less developed thoracic crests." A slightly 

 greater development of vestiture \n /estiva I have already referred to, but 

 the admixture of hair-like scales is sometimes present in that species also. 

 The vestiture of the Finland specimens is like that oi dislocata and calgary 

 rather than oi /estiva. It remains to be discovered what the real name of 

 the Finland specimens is. The differences noted, antennal and other- 

 wise, may perhaps prove to be variable and to connect "^'wh /estiva, but I 

 am loth to believe that dislocata is otherwise than distinct from calgary., 

 and observation of the two in nature supports this view, though they are 

 undoubtedly very closely allied. 



216. N. inopinatus Smith, — As I before suggested, I see no reason 

 whatever for considering this form distinct from hariispica. It is indeed 

 hard to find any species of Noctuid, particularly of an Agrotid, which does 

 not manifest certain phases of vaiiation peculiar to different regions. In a 

 very large number of instances such local forms have been described as 

 distinct species, or peihaps merely as races, and subsequently listed as 

 species without further justification. In some cases, where the variation 

 in one locality does not obviously overlap that from another, there seems 

 no reason why a well marked form should not be designated by a distin- 

 guishing name, though it seems arbitrary to designate it as a species. 

 But where, as in the present instance, extremes meet, and the variation 

 in one local series includes that in another, whether specimens in the two 

 actually match or not, it does not seem that a species name for each is 

 justified, and it certainly causes confusion. 



I happen to possess only two specimens from New York, the type 

 locality q{ haruspica, but have no reason for couMdering them distinct from 



