230 [December 



individuals than I have had access to need to be instituted, to perfectly 

 establish the Cuban species as distinct, a position, however, which I 

 have assumed in the present paper. I describe two species of (Jrorota, 

 which differ in their larger size from the United States species, while 

 structurally, I find no difference. A comparison of the Cuban speci- 

 mens of rtefheisa, with those from the United States, has led me to 

 unite U. Jx'lla, U. ornatrix, and U. spcciosn, as forms of one variable 

 species. With this single exception, the Cuban Bonibycidte are speci- 

 fically distinct from those of the United States. The American Tropi- 

 cal genus Ammalo has a representative species in Ammalo imjnincfus 

 m., which seems to me distinct from the South American Ammalo 

 helops, Cramer, sp. Ecjxmthcria has its representative species in E. 

 alljicoriris, m.; when we consider the limited representat-on that this 

 genus affords in the United States, and the very numerous South Ame- 

 rican, Mexican and West Indian species already noticed by authors we 

 shall agree that it is properly a Tropical genus, and thus the presence 

 of a distinct species, as I believe in Cuba, from one in Jamaica, assists 

 our conclusions that the different Islands composing the West Indies 

 form different Faunal Provinces with the general features of a Fauna] 

 District in common. The genus Ilnlisidota appears in Cuba in con- 

 junction with allied forms which indicate its position with o-reater 

 clearness, since, in our Fauna, it rather sharply contrasts with the 

 genera with which we are led to associate it. It is very interestino- 

 as affording a representative species of iT". tessellun's, and one that has 

 been hitherto confounded with Sir J. E. Smith's species, though beau- 

 tifully and very amply distinct from it. I have named this species 

 Halisidota cmctipes, from the neatly banded legs, which afford a ready 

 character as opposed to IT. tesselhfris. It is interesting to find a spe- 

 cies o^ Perophora in Cuba, differing strongly from P. Mehhoimcr'd- 

 as far as I can judge, the species of Perophora offer marked differences 

 of shape and structure among themselves, so that we have not to de- 

 pend entirely upon coloration, or size, in discriminating between the 

 species. An analagous character is offered by the Ceratocampid o-enus 

 Anisota. The genus Ci/dosia Westw., which I refer to the Lithosiinse 

 is one of those which "appear to unite" the sub-family with the Tine- 

 ites. Another genus has been described by Dr. Clemens under the 

 name of Ptxc'doptera. Specimens of i^. compta, Clem., occurred to me 

 in St. Louis, Mo., but unfortunately they have been mislaid, and I 

 cannot compare them with C. nohiUtella. Under the impression that 

 they constitute a distinct genus, aided by Dr. Clemens' elaborate o-eneric 



