Dec., '03] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 313 



Texas. The two forms being quite distinct, it became neces- 

 sary to determine which was ^a/fu'ua and which new. The 

 species has been described at least three times. First by 

 Clemens (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Vol. 12, 1860 P. 156) 

 and subsequently by Strecker, and again by Neumoegen and 

 Dyar. The original description by Clemens, (probably as 

 Strecker guessed, from a female only) is quite inadequate, 

 characters which are carefully noted having no specific value, 

 while what now prove to be specific characters are indifferently 

 mentioned or else omitted. Two features of the description, 

 however, serve to determine the true species. We are told 

 that "the marginal portion of the wing is whitish and is 

 tinged on the terminal edge with pale yellow." This is true 

 of both sexes in over a hundred specimens taken by Mr. Doll 

 in Texas, the habitat by the way of the specimen from which 

 Clemens wrote his description. In the new species, anona, 

 the subterminal white is a distinct band, clean cut on the 

 outer edge, not scalloped as in galbina, and the extreme outer 

 margin is brown, as dark as the basal color, not buff or lighter 

 as m galbina. 



The other point, is not so good, yet may be considered. The 

 original author says of the hind wings, " Hind wings similar 

 in color and ornamentation to the fore wings. ' ' This is true 

 of the form taken by Mr. Doll, alluding of course to a female. 

 In anona the basal two-thirds of the secondaries, even of the 

 female, is so much lighter that it could scarcely have escaped 

 the attention of the writer. 



Strecker mentions the species, gal bin a, and figures both 

 sexes. His specimens were from Texas, and his figures re- 

 semble those taken by Mr. Doll. He for the first time de- 

 scribes the male and, while brief, his description fixes the 

 species absolutely. 



In Neumoegen and Dyar's X. A. Bombycidae (P. 125) the 

 species is described under the generic reference Agnf><-ia. It 

 seems probable, partly from the fact that the true galbina was 

 not in the Neumoegen collection, and partly because of one 

 feature of the description, these authors used two of the 

 identical specimens now before me. They mention ' basal 



