198 JOHN B. SMITH. 



As characterized by the describers, Diludia is said to have the 

 " head large and salient ; prothoracic parts well advanced before the 

 insertion of primaries." In the figure of D. brontes given by them 

 (1. c. pi. 1, fig. 5) these characters are well marked, and with the 

 genus Diludia as based ujion this species I have no present disagree- 

 ment. 



In describing the species originally, Drury records it from New 

 York, and for some time the name was applied to what we now know 

 as C undulosa. Mr. Grote, however, showed that it could not well 

 be this species, and thinks Drury mistook the locality of the speci- 

 men. He figures a Cuban form which he identifies as brontes., yet 

 names cuhensia in case he should be in error. 



Mr. Butler agrees with Mr. Grote in the identification of the spe- 

 cies, and thinks the name cubemis unnecessary. Boisduval, on the 

 contrary, still believes undvlosa to be the form intended by Drury, 

 and so cites his figure; he adds that it is poor, and had Drury not 

 been explicit in stating that his specimen came from New York, he 

 would not have dared to identify it with undidosa ; but he believes 

 Drury intended this species, and not the one figured by Mr. Grote, 

 and will continue so to believe until some species from New York 

 turns up which agrees better with Drury's picture. 



After a careful study of specimens and figures I believe Mr. Grote 

 correct, and exclude brontes from our fauna as West Indian since I 

 know of no records sufficient to authorize its reception into our fiiunal 

 lists.* On comparison -wxih jasminearmn I find brontes to differ gene- 

 rically in the head and thoracic structure. It agrees with the char- 

 acters given by Grote & Robinson above cited, and disagrees with 

 those above given by me for Chkenogramma. The legs are unarmed, 

 but the fore tarsi are heavily spinulose. The species belongs with 

 rustica and allies, or with Pseudosj)hinx. 



Of leucophcecda I have seen several specimens from Mexico, which 

 also are not congeneric with jasminearum, nor indeed with brontes, 

 but closely allied to lugens in all essentials. The eyes are lashed, the 

 fore tibiie spinose, the tarsi with longer outer spines as in lugens. 

 Compared with the latter species the primaries are narrower and 

 longer, with more pointed apices. The transverse maculation is 

 much less distinct. I have no doubt of the correctness of the de- 

 termination of the specimens examined, which I believe was made 



* Mr. Edwards lias since published a record of its capture at Indian River, Fla. 

 See on this point appendix hereto. 



