34 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



It fits Smith's description and my notes exactly, with the 

 exception that I should not call the discoidal spots in the recent 

 capture "large," and the space between them is scarcely darker 

 than the ground. The expanse is 36 mm., a trifle smaller than the 

 size given of the type. It would never have occurred to me to 

 associate the species with hicarnea at all. In type of maculation 

 it comes much nearer to dislocata Sm., but the colour differs en- 

 tirely, being very ev^en "dark, almost blackish brown, with a 

 purplish tinge," except for bright, pale carneous patagia, and a 

 carneous shade in and round the reniform. The apparent purplish 

 tinge is probably really due to slight iridescence. All the tibia? 

 are spined, the fore tibiae on the inner side only, as is often the case 

 with dislocata and calgary. I was unable, however, to discover 

 any spines on the fore tibiae of the type, but noted that they were 

 not in a position easy for examination. The antennae are minutely 

 ciliate, and in the recent capture at any rate, rather heavily scaled 

 as well. The eyes are without lashes. The head and thorax are 

 thickly clothed with rough hair only, without crests. The wing 

 form and general build is like dislocata, in which the antennal 

 structure is similar except that dislocata has fewer scales, and 

 rather longer ciliations. The thoracic vestiture is rather rougher 

 than in dislocata. As far as these characters go, it seems referable 

 to Episilia Hbn., which is used by Hampson as prior to Pachnobia 

 Gn. and Choephora Grt. It appears to me that both calgary and 

 dislocata, if not some others which Hampson refers to Agrotis, fit 

 better with Episilia, as both have loose hairy vestiture without 

 obvious crests. But acarnea has one structural peculiarity not 

 hitherto observed in any North American genus referred to the 

 Agrotids except Trichorthosia, to which this is quite distantly 

 related. The eyes are sparsely and finely hairy. I mentioned this 

 to Prof. Smith after examining the type, but he was unable to find 

 the hairs and told- me that I was mistaken. If I had not been very 

 sure of my point, however, I should not have taken a note on the 

 fact, and on examining the eyes of the recent capture I find the 

 same. The hairs are not easily noticeable, I admit, and anyone 

 might be excused for overlooking them. They are most easily 

 Seen in strong sunlight. They are not much easier to find in some 

 specimens of Perigea alfkenii, though they are finer in acarnea 



