THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 39 



List. Prof. Smith, in Journ. N. Y. Ent. See, XV, 153, Sept., 1907, takes 

 exception to this view, but suggests that they may be races only. He 

 states that nevadce is much brighter, more contrasting, and broader 

 winged than canadensis. The latter was described from a unique male 

 from the Province of New Brunswick, and the type, which I have not 

 seen, is probably in the Thaxter collection in the Museum of Comparative 

 Zoology at Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Dyar says that specimens from Wis- 

 consin and from Kaslo, B. C., in the Washington Museum, are alike. I 

 saw them there, and have no note that they differed. They stood, by the 

 way, under canadensis, whilst Calgary specimens did duty for nevadœ. The 

 canadensis of Prof. Smith's collection was a badly worn male from 

 W^innipeg, which I should call about typical nevadce. Last winter I 

 examined a specimen from Hymers, Ontario, belonging to Mr. Winn, 

 which I thought might be typical canadensis, as it almost entirely lacked 

 the red shades of nevadce, though doubtfully distinct therefrom. But, 

 according to the description, red shades exist in ca?iadensis. At present 

 I have no evidence in favour of distinctness, though it requires more 

 material to permit of a fair judgment. 



298. il/, invalida Smith. — I have not taken this species here for 

 some years, but it seems to be of more frequent occurrence at Banff, 

 whence I have a iew. I have no males in my collection, and I notice 

 that an absence of that sex is complained of under the description, made 

 from specimens from Sierra Nevada and Placer Co., Calif. I have seen 

 a type at Rutger's College, another at Washington, and three are in the 

 Henry Edwards collection, though I overlooked these. My Alberta 

 specimens appear to be the same species. I have examined the type of 

 Walker's cristifera in the British Museum, a worn specimen from St. 

 Martin's Falls, Albany River, Hudson's Bay Territory. It is the specimen 

 figured by Hampson, but most of the pale shades shown in the figure 

 merely denote the worn condition pf the specimen. He makes Itibens 

 Grt., "ab. r," and ruftila Morr., a synonym. Of the latter I know noth- 

 ing, but lubens, of which the female type from New York is in the Museum 

 also, is easily distinct, as pointed out originally by Grote in Can. Ent., 

 XXVI, 141-146, 1894, and latterly by Prof. Smith, who has suggested 

 that cristifera may be prior to his invalida. I know nothing against the 

 suggestion, and were it not that the worn condition of cristifera type 

 leaves an element of doubt, I should say it was certainly correct. 



