426 TMK CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



one species. I was confirmed in this view by Mr. Swett, who assured me 

 that he had compared the types. 



However, as Mr. Swett now says that the two species as represented 

 in the Packard collection are quite distinct, and Mr. Grossbeck, who has 

 also studied the types (Ent. News, XVIII, p. 344), agrees with him, I 

 suppose we must retain both names on our lists. 



E. implicata, Walker. — It appears that the type specimen of this 

 species, which has been re-examined for me by Mr. Prout, is not the same 

 as anticaria, Walker. It is a form wry nearly 'allied to £. latipennis, 

 Hulst, but for the present I hesitate to unite the two. 



1 have now to deal with the species described by Mr. Hulst. They 

 are only five in number : 



1896. nebulosa. 1898. latipennis. 



1896. inornata. 1900. plumbaria. 



1896. fumosa. 



(It will be noted that an interval of 20 years separates Packard's 

 latest and Hulst's earliest descriptions.) 



With regard to nebulosa. I have always considered that the Texan 

 types — there is one of them in the U. S. National Museum — more nearly 

 agreed with Hulst's description than the New York and New Jersey 

 types which are still in the Hulst collection. I have therefore retained 

 Hulst's name, uebu/osa, for these Texan specimens in my own collection. 

 Those who think that this form is the same as the Atlantic Coast form 

 will, of course, place both together under the name miseru/ata. 



The type of Hulst's next species, inornata, has been shown by Mr. 

 Pearsall (Can. Ent., XXXIX, p. 143), to be a worn specimen of Euclueca 

 perlineata, Packard, and the name will therefore be dropped from 

 our lists. 



J-'umosa, Hulst, is discussed by Mr. Grossbeck (Ent. News, XVIII, 

 p. 348), and is apparently a good species of the absinthiata group. Jf I 

 have rightly identified it, I have it from Ottawa and Montreal. 



Latipennis is a good species, and one of the commonest (in Canada 

 ranging from Quebec 10 Winnipeg). It was originally described from a 

 specimen taken at Quebec by Mr. Hanham, and through the generosity of 

 that gentleman this type is in my collection. How Mr. Hulst came 

 subsequently to confuse this species with E. albicapitata is more than I 



