26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 109 



maculate body color pattern while ethotela has the bimaculate pattern. 

 These differences have seemed sufficient to maintain the two as 

 separate species until the present time. 



Recently, however, a series of specimens from the extreme north- 

 eastern part of Tennessee has been found to exhibit characters inter- 

 mediate between eutypa and ethotela. These specimens are not only 

 intermediate in the form of the male gonopods but show interesting 

 variation in color pattern as well. Most of these specimens show the 

 trimaculate pattern like eutypa but some few have the bimaculate 

 pattern typical of ethotela. It seems obvious that the existence 

 of these intermediate specimens in the area where the ranges of 

 eutypa and ethotela join makes it necessary to regard the two as only 

 subspecifically distinct. 



Study of a number of collections of eutypa eutypa from various parts 

 of Tennessee has shown that clinal variation is very evident within 

 this subspecies. Indeed, I at first thought that at least two different 

 subspecies were involved. Extensive collecting has shown, however, 

 that the characters change gradually as one moves from northeastern 

 Tennessee towards the west or southwest. The postcingular portion 

 of the telopodite of the male gonopod becomes longer and more slender 

 and the collum ridge becomes more and more evident. The latter 

 character is of special interest inasmuch as it is constant within 

 species in most instances. 



An interesting specimen collected in Avery County, N. C, may 

 represent another subspecies, but it is being considered an aberrant 

 specimen of eutypa eutypa until such time as more collecting reveals 

 the true situation. This specimen has the telopodite of the male 

 gonopod of the typical eutypa form, but the usually moderately strong 

 prefemoral spine is reduced to a small nub (fig. 3^). This is more 

 variation than would normally be expected, but inasmuch as variation 

 in this character, albeit to a lesser extent, is known in other species 

 such as B. insolita, it seems insufficient for separate nomenclatorial 

 distinction when only one specimen is known. The specimen shows 

 the bimaculate color pattern which is not the typical pattern for 

 eutypa eutypa. 



It is necessary that attention be called to the distribution record 

 for Burkes Garden in southwestern Virginia given by Hoffman (1949) 

 for ethotela. These specimens actually represent a new species, 

 Brachoria hamata (p. 30). 



The specimens upon which the distribution records for ethotela 

 in Kentucky given by Causey (1955) were based have been examined 

 by the author. The clarifications provided by the present study 

 make it possible to . identify these specimens mth more certainty. 



