THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 135 



All the specimens of quercivoraria which have so far been taken by 

 our B. C. collectors, and all the specimens I have received from various 

 localities in the United States and Canada, together with, so Dr. Dyar 

 informs me, all the specimens in the United States National Museum, are 

 females, and all the specimens of textrijiaria are males. 



The inference would seem to be that these forms are sexes of one 

 species which would retain the older name of quercivoraria, and that 

 Packard made a slip of the pen in giving dimensions of ^ quercivoraria. 



If this is not the case, then we must be confounding the males of two 

 species under the name textrinaria, and similarly the females of two 

 species under the name quercivoraria, which seems very unlikely. Will 

 readers of the Canadian Entomologist kindly examine their series 

 under the above names and tell us whether they find two species or one ? 



My second query relates to the insect described and figured by 

 Packard in the Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1874, and again in the 

 " Monograph," p. 453, as Cleora umbrosaria. The type was one male 

 from California (Edwards), but the description in the Monograph is from 

 four males, the additional ones being from Victoria, Vancouver Island 

 (Crotch), and it is one of these that Packard figures on plate XL, fig. 33. 



This figure shows a moth with pectinated antennae. In his description 

 Packard says " antennae broadly pectinated as usual," and he places the 

 species in Cleora, in which genus, of course, the $ antennae are always 

 pectinated. Hulst removed the species to his genus Nepytia, in which 

 also the antennae of the males are pectinated, but at the same time he 

 changed the termination to " ata," signifying that the antennae are sitnple. 

 But this moth is common in British Columbia, and our specimens, some 

 of them from Victoria one of the type localities, agree exactly with 

 Packard's description, except that in the male the antennse show no signs 

 of pectination. Our species, then, cannot be a Cleora in any sense, or a 

 Nepytia. It, in fact, belongs to the genus Enypia, Hulst. 



The question then is this : Is there in California a species of 

 Nepytia with pectinated antennae to which Packard's original type 

 belonged and which he failed to distinguish from the Vancouver Island 

 specimens, or was Packard, who had four males before him, in error with 

 regard to the " broadly pectinated antennae," which he both described 

 and figured ? 



In the first case the Vancouver species will require a new name. In 

 the second case all that will be needed will be to transfer the species 

 ujnbrosata, Packard, to the genus Enypia. 



