214 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



ON THE VALIDITY OF EUPITHECIA HARLEQUIN ARIA 



DYAR. 



BY E. H. BLACKMORE, VICTORIA, B.C. 



In the Check List of B. C. Lepidoptera, published by the Pro- 

 vincial Department of Agriculture in 1916, the late Rev. G. W. 

 Taylor listed Eupithecia harlequinaria Dyar as a synonym of 

 bifasciata Dyar. Later, in the Can. Ent., Vol. XVII, No. 3, p, 

 80, he says of harlequinaria that "one of the Victoria specimens 

 passed through my hands and I have no hesitation in saying that 

 it was merely a very brightly coloured, fresh specimen of bifasciata.^' 



As I have been making a special study of the B. C. Geometrids 

 for the past four years, I was naturally interested in the above re- 

 mark. In 1914 I took a worn specimen of Eupithecia which was 

 referable to harlequinaria as compared by me with one of the 

 types which is in the Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. 



In 1915 I took another specimen, which was in perfect con- 

 dition and matches the type exactly. Through the kindness of 

 Mr. J. W. Cockle, of Kaslo, who sent me three specimens of 

 bifasciata I have been able to make a careful comparison of them, 

 and I have no hesitation in saying that they are two distinct, and 

 easily recognizable species, and that they are not liable to be con- 

 fused one with the other. One of Mr. Cockle's specimens bears a 

 label in his handwriting: "One of the original set from which 

 Dyar's determination was made" and I presume that Mr. Cockle 

 means that it is one of the short series that he had, from which 

 Dr. Dyar selected the one which he made the type. However, 

 it exactly fits Dr. Dyar's description of bifasciata (Proc. U. S. 

 Nat. Mus., Vol. XXVII, p. 891). Dr. Dyar's description of 

 harlequinaria (Proc. Ent. Soc, Wash., vol. 7, p. 29, 1905) is par- 

 ticularly good, and the specimen I took in 1915 fits the description 

 in every particular. 



Anyone reading the two descriptions together could not, by any 

 stretch of the imagination, believe them to refer to the same 

 species, and it is inconceivable to me that Dr. Dyar would de- 

 scribe the same insect twice in such a short space of time. The 

 most striking difference between the two species is the presence, 

 in harlequinaria of a large, bright, ochreous patch on the upper 

 side of the primaries, running from the discal spot to fringe, and 

 Qccupying the space between veins 3 and 4> overspreading each a- 



