THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 295 



I think I may have confused Dr. McDunnough on histriolata 

 Zeller, as I was mistaken in supposing the Cambridge specimen 

 to be a paratype. I have made a careful study of Zeller's de- 

 scriptions and Dr. Hagen's methods, and find that the error may 

 be laid to Packard's door, where he states in the Monograph that 

 he has Zeller's types. Unless Zeller states that the specimens 

 are in the museum at Cambridge they cannot be considered as 

 types, as his descriptions indicate. Hagen appears to have sent 

 specimens to Zeller and placed a yellow label on the specimen 

 agreeing with those he sent; hence they may be considered as 

 having been merely compared with the type. This does not alter 

 our conception of the species as both Dr. McDunnough and I 

 knew it, but changes the fixation of types. 



I have positively identified the type of glaucata Pack, as the 

 specimen in the Henry Edwards' collection, so labeled. I find in 

 the older plates of the Boston Society of Natural History the 

 wings are reversed, so by a careful comparison of holes and tears 

 in the wing I was able definitely to place it. Mr. Frank Watson 

 has again checked my notes and made comparisons verifying my 

 conclusions. In the original Henry Edwards' catalogue, for No. 

 1375, he gives "Santa Clara Co., California, taken at rest in forest, 

 on a pine tree, in June." The specimen was originally mounted 

 on a headless brass pin, but was repaired and remounted on May 

 2, 1917, and stands as No. 13197, Henry Edwards' collection. 



Hydriomena edenata Swett has more elongated primaries than 

 glaucata Pack. Apparently Dr. McDunnough has a closely related 

 form, shown on pi. VI, fig. 4, but the basal and mesial lines do not 

 exactly match the type of glaucata. 



H. regulata looks superficially like a suffused form of some of 

 the speciosata group. 



H. periclata Swett should be placed as a form of H. quiuque- 

 fasciata Pack., rather than furcata, the type having a broken 

 uncus, and a recent second specimen showing the correct location 

 of the form. I am to blame for this, rather than Dr. McDunnough, 

 as in my notes to him on the species I so placed it incorrectly 

 owing to this defect in the type and the lack of other material. 

 The receipt of two males recenth' from the same locality enabled 

 me to place it correctly. 



I have still another new species of Hydriomena, which I 



