H. M. PARSHLEY 
53 
and the vittae of the eonnexiviiin are characteristic. In the type 
series of Heideinann’s hiibhnrdi we find a good example of this 
unusual varialnlity ; the male type specimen has the scutellum 
acute and concolorous at apex, the sides slightly arcuate, while 
in the female the apex is narrowly rounded and pale, the sides 
sinuate. These differences are not sexual, and numerous inter- 
gi'ading conditions are to he met with in a series of specinums. 
As often happens in the case of vai'iable si:)ecies, a numliei- of ob- 
servers have describ('d p/oho.sc/dca.s under various names, result- 
ing in the synonymy given above, although the varial)ility is not 
great enough to have caused the confusion, had ^\ alker’s work 
been understood by American students. \ an Duzee’s Uiylort^*' 
is founded on an example of the dark form common in British 
Columbia, which 1 do not consider worthy of a varietal name; 
the unfortunate comparison with acvtus, instituted in connection 
with the original description, may account for the author’s failure 
to realize the tiaie relationships of taylori. Air. (b A. Aloore, 
of (^uelnw, has lieen kind enough to make a special visit to th(‘ 
Bev. Air. Fyles for the purpose of studying the type of luteolus. 
Provided with specimens and a copy of my description he made 
an extremely careful examination and reported as follows: “1 
have no hesitancy in saying that it (Fyles’ type) agrees with 
both specimen and description”; and he added extended notes 
on the detailed characters, bearing out the truth of this assertion. 
Through the kind offices of Air. (1. C'. C'hampion I have received 
a full description and drawings of the type specimen of pro- 
hoscideus Walker, prepared with the greatest attention to detail 
by Afr. K. G. Blair, of the British Aluseum (and an artist). 
From this information it was cpiite evident to me that Heide- 
mann had descril)ed the same species under the name huJthardi, 
and upon my seiuling a typical example of the latter with my 
description. Air. Blair wrote; ‘‘()n comparison I think there 
can b)e no doubt that A. proboscnlens Walk, and A. huhbardi 
Held, are identical.” C'areful notes were added in this case also, 
and at the bottom of the sheet bearing my description, “In my 
opinion the two are certainly synonymous.” Walker’s original 
tlesciI])tion is cpiite inadecpiate, and misstates the sex of the 
■type; while that of Fyles, as might be expected of a l('})idopt(‘i'ist, 
Pror. Cal. Aoad. Sci., (4), ix, ]). ltd.a, 1920. 
TR.WS. .\M. EXT. SOC., XLVII. 
