THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 275 



Eucestia fuscata, new species. — q. Expanse, 24.5 mm. Front, 



antenna3 and thorax fuscous, with a sprinkling of white scalesj palpi white 



at basal and fuscous at apical half; vertex wholly brown. Ground colour 



of primaries whitish-cinereous, thickly overlaid with fuscous scales. Three 



parallel whitish lines, the inner beginning one-fourth from the apex on the 



costa, and terminating one-third from the inner angle on the inner 



margin, extend obliquely across the wing, curving outward at radius 5, 



and inward at cubitus 2. These lines are almost obsolete a little below 



radius 5 to media 2, the innermost showing most plainly. The outer line 

 in the apical portion of the wing deeply scalloped. The terminal line 

 deep fuscous, preceded and narrowly broken by whitish scales. The basal 

 line is represented by an oblique, rather broad mark, in the centre of the 

 wing, slightly nearer the inner margin. The discal spot is deep fuscous, 

 linear. Veins, media i, media 3 and cubitus i are darkened by fuscous 

 scales from the centre of the wing to the inner transverse line. Fringe 

 checkered white and pale fuscous. Secondaries smoky brown, slightly 

 darker at the apex, and with darker squares in the fringe. Beneath it is 

 pale smoky brown, peppered with white scales along the costa and outer 

 margin ; the fringe checkered as above. 



Described from one male received from Dr. J. B. Smith, taken at 

 Colton, Cal., Feb. 26. 



Type in Rutger's College, from coll. Dr. J. B. Smith. 



In spite of the close similarity of the markings io Eucestia rot2itidata, 

 I am positive that this will remain a good species. The outward curva- 

 ture of the transverse white lines and the suffusion of fuscous scales, 

 combine to make the species distinct. 



THE SNOW FLY, CHIONEA VALGA. 



BY C. N. AINSLIE, ROCHESTER, MINN. 



From allusions that are met with in papers and letters, the Snow Fly 

 seems to be to most collectors a mythical insect, seldom described and 

 more infrequently found. The late Dr. Lugger claimed to have taken it 

 in Minnesota, but, a short time before his death, when he undertook to 

 show me an example of the insect, it could not be found either in his own or 

 the State collection. It is true he figured it in his Second Annual Report, 

 issued in 1896, but that and the figure in the last State report, 1905, are 



