,'^4 THE CA.NADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



have Lc:n calling complaria {= perluieata) is not in the Packard collection 

 at all, and is the one I should have described. 



In the Packard collection perlhieata is represented by two males 

 labelled "type" from "West Virginia, Mead. 4. 9. 72," in good condition, 

 and referred to in description, page Z^, Mono. Geom. Moths, 1S76. 

 I2-Iineata. — Under this name are four males, labelled "type," all from 

 California. Three of them belong to the genus Nomenia, bearing 

 unipectinate antennae. The fourth is a male without a vestige of antennae, 

 but is certainly the western form of Euchceca, referred by me to salimia. 

 It was the custom of Dr. Packard to describe from a group of specimens, 

 calling all of them types, and he so labelled them. In the Monograph 

 Geo. Moths, iZ-]6,perimeaia was represented by five males and five females; 

 of these, only two males are left. Of 12-lineata he had three males and 

 five females. Now there are four males left. Three are the males of 

 Nomenia. Where did the other $ come from ? Did he consider the 

 other western species with its simple antennae to be females of the first ? 

 It would appear so. Again, in taking description from a group of speci- 

 mens involving two species, he makes reference to a certain characteristic 

 which may belong to one species or the other, and where it becomes 

 necessary to separate them, as in the case of i2-lineat(i, the description 

 may not wholly fit either of them. After many careful comparisons be- 

 tween my specimens and his description and plates (note its simple 

 antennae), I find them to agree so well that, as offering the best way out 

 of a complex situation, it would be better to recognize the western 

 Euchoeca as entitled to the name of u-Iijieata, Pack , and raise it to 

 specific rank. At the close of his; remarks under this species he says: 

 "It may be found to intergrade with E. perlineata of the Eastern States. 

 It is a little larger, with more acute fore wings than that species or 

 variety (.?)" He might have added, by its colour also, which is white, as 

 he describes it, while perlineata is decidedly bluish-ashen ; nor did he 

 refer to Nomenia, for that species is noticeably smaller than, perlineata. 

 By these points it is easily sej^arable to my eye. 'i'his situation leaves 

 Nomenia sp. undescril)ed. 



To-day I received a letter from Mr. Prout, in which, after acknowl- 

 edging receipt of my specimens, he says : 



'^Coiiiptar'ia, Walk., is not -^perlineata (that is my Catskill Mt 

 species I had'sent him X^h^iW^d perlineata). Tiiis is certissime ! 



"IF it is not exactly ^salienta, Pears. ... it is at least so close 

 to it that my eye fails to detect any difference WHATl'^.VER." 



