THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 335 



231. 7^ vene?abi/is \\2iW. — 1 had this species correctly listed, and 

 Holland's fig. 26, pi. XXII, is correct, Mr. E. J. Smith adjusting his own 

 error in Ent. News, XVI, 277, Oct., 1905. The explanation of my having 

 likened this species to Sir George Hampson's figure of volubilis rather 

 than of venerabilis^ is that the figure of the latter is, so my notes tell me, 

 bad and misleading. When I wrote my notes I had never seen volubilis ^ 

 tlie Chicago specimens received under that name having been all vener- 

 abilis. Walker's type of this is a badly worn male from Nova Scotia, and 

 happens to be an unusual form rather volubilis-\\\it in appearance. 



Venerabilis has male antennae strongly bipectinate, and volubilis serrate- 

 fasciculate only, and as a rule the two are entirely dissimilar in appearance. 

 But specimens ot one very closely resembling the other undoubtedly 

 sometimes occur, and I have such in my series. 



232. F. vancoiivercjisis Grt. — I have come across no more specimens 

 here of the form I thus Hsled, but have four similar specimens from Field, 

 B. C, taken by the lite Dr. James Fletcher, and one from Windermere. 

 The latter is dated July 12th, 1907, and the Field specimens July 5th, 

 1902. They are smaller, paler, and less strongly marked than va?icoiiver- 

 ensis from the B. C. coast, but may be a small race of that species. The 

 volubil'.s-vancoiiverensis group is a difficult one, comprising some forms 

 which seem locally constant, and requires studying in longer series than I 

 have yet been able to compare. The specimen figured by Holland as 

 vancoiivereJisis is certainly not that species. It is stated in the text to come 

 from Labrador. I cannot name it with certainty, but it is much more 

 like opipara Morrison or munis Grote. 



233. F. obliqua Smith. — I have the species from Mr. Baird, of 

 High River. 



234. Porosagrotis retusia Walk, is the correct name for this species, 

 Dr. Dyar's catenula of the Kootenai List is the same. Catenula Grt. is 

 prior to Euxoa contagionis Smith. As a matter of fact, I believe Prof. 

 Smith would include Calgary specimens under his name catenuloides, but 

 I cannot see that this is even a well marked variation. (Cf. Journ. N. Y; 

 Ent. Soc, XVIII, 88, and Ent. News, XXt, 396-7, June and Nov., 1910 ) 

 I have it from High River, 



[236. The worn specimen I had listed doubtfully as orihogonia is not 

 that species, nor in the least like it. It is near, or possibly identical with, 

 the following.] 



