122 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



ON CERTAIN IDENTIFICATIONS IN THE GENUS 



ACRONYCTA. 



BY HARRISON G. DYAR, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



Prof. Smith has been to London, and now radically changes the 

 synonymy in the genus Acronycta, which I had hoped was to have 

 -been finally settled in the revision which was published by him and 

 myself. The changes involve the identification of three of Guenee's 

 species and one of Walker's. As to impleta, Walk., we must accept 

 Smith's identification as luteicoma, G. & R. I would suggest that the 

 type ought now to be destroyed, lest future changes in the synonymy 

 result. Guenee described eighteen species of Acronycta from North 

 America, of which the larvae of six were mentioned. In a genus like 

 Acronycta, where the imagoes are so similar as not to be readily differ- 

 entiated by description, while the larvae are very diverse, the larval 

 descriptions are relatively important. Of the three species now changed 

 (clarescens, Gn.; hamamelis, Gn.; brumosa, Gn.), two have original larval 

 descriptions. As to clarescens I have no comment, especially as Grote's 

 first identification is now restored. But the others are different. Hama- 

 melis, formerly referred to an oak-feeding species (inclara, Smith), is now 

 transferred to afflicta, Grt. But Guenee's description contradicts afflicta 

 in the colour of the hind wings, whereas it fits well the species named 

 subochrea by Grote, better even than it fits inc/ara, and to this the larva 

 also applies. As to brumosa, Smith says (Revision, p. 118) "the original 

 description will fit either one of two or three species." The characteriza- 

 tion of the larva should then be allowed to prevail and the name be 

 referred to inclara. 



I do not think that Guene'e's types should be exclusively considered. 

 Smith remarks (Can. Ent., XXXII., 335) that hamamelis, Gn., is the same 

 as brumosa, var. b ; but Guene'e described no variety b. So it is not 

 unlikely that there has been some mixture of or addition to Guene'e's 

 types during the fifty years since they were described. I am, therefore, 

 inclined to the following synonymy : 



Brumosa, Guen. Hamamelis, Guen. 



inclara, Smith. subochrea, Grt. 



Afflicta and persuasa will remain good species as formerly, and thus 

 two of Prof. Smith's changes can be avoided. 



