344 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



the first two united for about i}^ mm. beyond the separation of the 

 lowest ; anal lobe obliterated, but I do not think it was very large. 



Lithophotina floccosa^ n. sp. 

 Length of tegmen about 21)^ mm., width 7 ; apparently subhyaline, 

 with brown veins, and obscure, irregular brown mottling. 



Florissant ; Miocene, Station 14 {W. P. Cockerell^ 1907). 



THE GENUS EUPITHECIA AND ITS ALLIES. 



BY RICHARD F. PEARSALL, RROOKLYN, N. Y. 



The present paper must necessarily be, in part, of a tentative char- 

 acter, for the active attention which has been accorded the Geometrinae 

 of late has resulted in giving us many new species, and their affiliations 

 are yet to be wrought out. My object is partially to clear the way for 

 future and more mature work. Of the genera allied with Etipithecia^ Dr. 

 Hulst has placed two in our list, one of which, in the light of recent 

 research, must be excluded therefrom, and the other greatly restricted, 

 viz., CkloroclystiSi Hubn., and Gynmocelis, Mab. The former is repre- 

 sented by a single species, i?iconspicua, Hist., the female type of which is 

 in the Hulst collection at New Brunswick, N. J. Upon examination, it 

 proves to be the female of 6'^//^<?i-^;;/^ Wrightiaria, Hulst (Dyar, 3829), 

 a species described in 1888 from four males, taken in Southern California. 

 It has vein 8 of hind wings not connected with cell, and vein 5 wanting. 

 Imofispiaia becomes therefore a synonym, and the genus is left without a 

 known representative in our fauna, and must be dropped. This con- 

 clusion was first reached through study of a small series of W?'ightiaria., 

 taken at Pasadena, Calif., in my own collection, and later confirmed by 

 reference to the type. 



Gymnocelis has been the subject of a recent paper by Mr. J. A. 

 Grossbeck (Journ. N. Y. Entom. Society, March, 1908), presenting facts 

 relating to the various species under it, which are in line with my own 

 observations, and show conclusively that jninuta, Hist., is the only species 

 which we know at present as fitted to remain in the genus. The others 

 form a group, as he points out, not possible of combination with Etipithecia^ 

 even if it were desirable to place them in that already overcrowded genus, 

 and although in individuals of one species, remorata^ Gross., the upper 

 spurs of the hind tibiae may be absent, in other respects it does coincide 

 with the group, nevertheless it appears to me that they should be assembled 

 under a distinct genus. For this genus I propose the name JVasusina, the 



October, 1908 



