THE CANADIA.N ENTOMOLOGIST, 51 



given in Hampson's Catalogue. I take it that typical specimens of 

 inconcinna are more or less unicolorous, reddish-brown, the dark inferior 

 portion of the reniform being the only really conspicuous marking, while 

 agrestis is more variegated with distinct maculation. The latter species 

 is immensely variable, and as I admit inability to make any really 

 satisfactory separation of ///6V^//(r//^//^ the real range of variation in that is 

 imi)0ssible for me to state. Grote described his agrestis as a variety of 

 auxiliai-is. . .• 



225. C. terrealis, Grt. — Very rare. One S and four $ $ have beeli 

 taken. Two $ 9 July 6th, 1896; another Aug. 23rd, 1901 ; a (^ July 

 5th of the same year, and a $ on June 30th, 1904. Prof Smith has the 

 (J and has seen three of the $ 9 . He says : " It is not the typical 

 form, and comes from an unexpected locality ; but the species of this 

 genus are all widely distributed, and in the essential points agreement is 

 sufficiently close to make me feel safe in the name. The typical form is 

 more red-brown and the costal margin a little paler." My specimens are 

 very dark brown, faintly tinged with chestnut. In one, the darkest, the 

 maculation is obscured and the reniform rather faintly outlined in whitish 

 and produced along median vein towards the orbicular, a character I can 

 find in no other specimens of the genus. The other two have distinct 

 maculation, and the discoidals, particularly the reniform, are conspicuously 

 outlined in whitish, and are much paler centrally than ground colour. In 

 none of them is there any sign whatever of a paler costa. The description 

 in Sir George Hampson's Catalogue is, "Dark fuscous brown.... the 

 costal area brick-red," and in the figure this latter feature is as conspicu- 

 ous as in auxi/iaris, though, of course, the colours are different. It seems 

 by no means improbable that the Calgary form is another species. 



226. C. balanitis, Grt. — Has been rare of late years, but I have seen 

 it very abundant, and then it v/as a bad pest at treacle. In 1894, near the 

 mouth of Fish Creek, it positively swarmed. I have certainly seen 

 Nodua clandestina in greater numbers, but not at treacle. I don't think 

 I exaggerate when I say that on each of two consecutive nights in early 

 July of that year I could have captured two thousand on not more than 

 forty treacled posts. That was one of my earliest experiences of treacling 

 in the Northwest. I never saw anything to equal the sight before, and 

 though I have on one or two occasions since seen treacle almost or t[uite 

 as prolific, one species has not so largely predominated. June to middle 

 of August. 



