THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 363 



Both may be the same as teleboa Smith, described from a female from New 

 Mexico, which I have seen in the Brooklyn Museum. Hampson's figure 

 of the latter, taken from a coloured drawing of the type, is rather too 

 faintly marked. Teleboa was described one page before pedalis^ and 

 resembles rediciiicta more closely than does the other. Hampson places 

 the three next one another, on the strength of figures sent him of the 

 types, but had no specimens. 



255. E. holoberba Smith.- -I have not come across this species here 

 for some years, and have only a single Calgary specimen in my collection. 

 I have, however, a beauty from Nelson, B. C, almost exactly like it. It 

 is a close ally of spo?isa Smith, and may possibly prove to be the same, 

 but my specimens of holoberba denote a larger, more robust insect, though 

 of course that character may be variable. The type of sponsa is from the 

 State of Washington, and that of numa Strecker from Seattle in that 

 State. I believe them to be the same species, and identical with the type of 

 mia'onyx Grote from California. All three types are females. That of 

 sponsa is at Washington, numa in the Strecker collection at Chicago, and 

 niicronyx in the British Museum. 



256. E. iieotelis Smith (Pr. U. S. N. M., XXII, p. 446, 1900, 

 Carneades). 



E. objurgata Smith (Id., p. 448). 



E. cariosus Smith (Id., p. 449). — A pair of types of each of these 

 three names, all from Pullman, Washington State, are in the Washington 

 Museum, and co-types are there and in Prof Smith's collection. Colorado 

 is given under the description as another locality for ?teote!is, and Dakota 

 for objurgata. 



E.focifius Smith (Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc, XL, p. 7, 1903). — No. 264 

 of my list. This was described from a long series from Calgary ; Pull- 

 man, Washington ; Glenwood Springs, Colo., and Truckee and Sierra 

 Nevada, Calif. I have notes on a female type and a co-type from 

 Pullman, in Prof. Smith's collection, but omitted to write notes on the 

 male type. I must apologise to Prof. Smith, as I know he has been 

 unable to see with me in this matter, but I feel bound to express my 

 opinion that the above four names refer to the same species, and 

 moreover, that they do not even denote anything approaching the wide 

 range of variation which I believe the species to possess. Compare my 

 previous notes under objurgata and focinus in Can. Ent., XXXV^II, pp. 

 57, 59, and on p. 60, \iVL^t\ pestiila in error, as all specimens I then had 

 under that name are really this species. The female types objurgata and 



