THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 



I have no Kaslo specimens of any Homohadena in my collection, 

 and have always been in doubt as to the identity of fifia. But if 

 I am to accept Dr. Dyar's identification, which would not seem 

 unreasonable, that would make fifia a synonym of infixa, and dis- 

 tinct from badistriga, from which latter I have always been 

 inclined to dissociate it. Hampson's published figure of fifia is 

 from a figure sent him of the type, and may be misleading. I 

 have compared my Calgary female infixa with the same figure 

 from which Hampson's was taken, and my note is: "Extremely 

 like figure oi ficfia in British Museum, but more even on costa and 

 with darker thorax." The evidence, therefore, seems to point to 

 fifia being infixa, but at present I must leave the matter open. 

 Holland's Plate XXI, fig. 1, is infixa, and not badistriga, as stated. 

 Badistriga is much more strigate, and has the transverse lines 

 more deeply curved. 



In the Rutgers College collection I saw a photograph labelled 

 retroversa Morr., presumably of the type in the Tepper collection. 

 My note on this says: "It looks to me almost exactly like the 

 male type oi dinalda Smith," with which I compared it. In that 

 case Hampson's figure under retroversa, which is copied from a 

 figure of a specimen in the U. S. National Museum, can hardly be 

 correct. Barnes and McDunnough have a coloured figure of type 

 retroversa, described, I believe, from Missouri, and figure a speci- 

 men from that state as agreeing with it. (Contr. II, No. 1, pi. 

 XI, fig. 11.) I have Manitoba and Alberta specimens of infixa 

 resembling their figure very closely indeed. I dare comment no 

 further. 



608. Oncocnemis regina Sm. — Described from a male from 

 Regina, the capital of Saskatchewan. The capture is attributed 

 to the late Dr. James Fletcher, but may really have come from 

 Mr. T. N. Willing. I have seen the type at Rutgers College. 

 Mr. J. B. Wallis took a female at Lethbridge, Alta., on Aug. 21st, 

 1912, which I have examined and compared with the description, 

 and judged to be this species, though it appeared to be much 

 darker and less maculate than the type. Barnes and McDunnough, 

 in Contr. I, No. 4, pi. HI, fig. 20, figure as regina a Eureka, 

 Utah, specimen, remarking: "Probably this species, though most 



