16 [July 



names of 0. Ocno and C. Also to be distinct. On a most rigid coni- 

 parison of Moschler's descriptions of the two forms, together with all 

 his notes, and a comparison of the twelve individuals in the collection 

 before me from Labrador, which must belong to one or the other or to 

 both, undertaken, too, with a general bias in favor of Moschler's deter- 

 minations as evincing evident care and good judgment. I must confess 

 myself unable to see any good ground for considering C. Ocno as dis- 

 tinct from G. Ahn, notwithstanding Moschler's remark that " Ocno can- 

 not easily be confounded with any of the allied species" (p. 213). 



In the first place I would call attention to some incongruities in the 

 descriptions of Mbschler. In his description of C. Also he first says, 

 •• Primaries with or without 1-2 black, sometimes white pupilled eyes. 

 Secondaries without eyes" (pp. 208—9). He next says: "All specimens 

 agree in this, that the secondaries always bear an eye either on the 

 upper or on the under side" (p. 209). A few lines after, under the 

 description of the male, these words occur: '-All the wings without 

 trace of eyes" (p. 209). Only two lines after this we find, still undei' 

 the description of the male, that there are '■ in the cells of all the wings 

 yellow points, cell 5 of the primaries with a small blind black eye. which 

 on the under side is distinctly white-pupilled" (pp. 209-10). The 

 next reference we find to these eyes is under the description of the 

 female, where the primaries are " either * * * without eyes, or * * with 

 * * two black eyes in cells 2 and 5, of which the first is sometimes 

 white pupilled, or * * * two eyes, of which sometimes both are pupilled, 

 sometimes both are blind, sometimes one blind, the other pupilled" 

 (pp. 210—11). Speaking further on of the underside in the female, 

 he says : '• Should the upper side of the primaries have eyes, beneath 

 they are always white-pupilled" (p. 211). 1 will only add that the 

 specimen of Chionohas before me, labelled ^•Cramhis" by Moschler, 

 ( which he considers synonymous with C. A/xo) has no trace of eyes on 

 primaries or secondaries above or beneath. Such discrepancies as these 

 of course render this part of his description useless. 



" Oeno," says Mbschler, •' cannot easily be confounded with any of 

 the allied species; both the lesser size and ihe diaphanous coloring, but 

 most especially the coloring of the under side of the secondaries, .sepa- 

 rate this species decisively from the others" (p. 213). We quote this 

 to show that in these very points we cannot see why 0. Oeno should 

 be separated from C Also. These are the distinctions as given by 

 him. 



I. The expanse of wings as given by Mbschler, is for C. Also 42-50 

 millimetres; for 0. Oeno 40-43 millimetres. 



