THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 59 



sharply. There is a tendency for the extra-discal bands to unite 

 at the inner margin of the wing. The entire outer margin is olive- 

 green, not lighter near the outer margin as is usual. The median 

 band is much wider than usual and the basal runs almost straight 

 across the wing, slightly curved outward. The intradiscal band 

 is strongly notched on the fore wing at vein 2. This seems to be a 

 rare species and is in few collections. The specimens referred to 

 in the Packard monograph from Kentucky and Missouri I 

 do not think belong to this species, as the Kentucky specimen is 

 autumnalis, while the Missouri specimen is not in the collection, 

 but was probably returned to the sender. Dr. Riley, and should 

 be in the National Museum collection at Washington. The palpi 

 are very stout and the head is rather broad, so that it could not 

 possibly be confused with autnmnalis, and how it should be referred 

 to the latter I cannot guess. I believe it is strictly Texan. 



Types.— I d" 10, Dallas, Tex., March 16 (Boll). 



Type. — 1 9 Texas (Boll) in Zeller collection. 



It is a striking species and can be confused with no other. 



IS. Hydriomena regulata Pears. (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash; 

 Vol. XI, p. 131, 1909). 



This is a peculiar species with olive and liver coloured 

 shadings and has a little less than usual the general appearance 

 of the Hydriomena group. The markings are not common 

 for the Hydriomena, as I know of no other with liver coloured 

 shadings, and I believe it to be rare, as the specimens in 

 Mr. R. F. Pearsall's collection are all I have seen. It has no 

 ■discal spots on primaries, the secondaries dusky and shaded with 

 yellow brown. 



Types.— 2 cfs, Douglas Ariz., Aug. 22 and 2-3, 1908. 



19. Hydriomena edenata Swett. (Can. Ent., Vol XLI, p. 232, 

 July, 1909). 



This species is a large broad-winged one, on the pattern 

 of ruberata Freger. It has a wide black bar just above inner 

 margin of primaries which serves to separate it from ruberata, 

 besides the other differences which I have already pointed out in 

 the description. There is an error in the original description 

 (Can. Ent., vol. XLI, p. 232, July, 1909), which I overlooked 

 until now. Instead of "5 males" read "5 females," and instead of 



