142 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi.xviii. 



The antennae of the male are simple, ciliate, with single lateral 

 bristles that are not much more prominent than the other hairs. 



The genitalia of the male are of the same general type as the pre- 

 ceding and very close to those of all the following species. The ladle- 

 like tip is moderate or rather small in size, but really more spoon- 

 shaped, with a coronal fringe of spinules ; but without the patch of 

 spinules at the inner or anal angle which is found in all the preceding 

 forms. The clasper starts differently and forms a shoulder or angle 

 at the base. The uncus agrees with that of helva in a general way, 

 and in all the following species there is a slight dilation beyond which 

 the tip is rather long drawn out. There is some difference between 

 the penis-sheaths in the species ; but these have not been well enough 

 compared to determine how much is due to difference in position or 

 point of view. 



As for the rest of the species they have been hopelessly confused 

 in collections under the names conradi, citinia, morna, cxornata, 

 hclangcri and iiificita. where they have been named at all, and I long 

 ago abandoned any idea that I knew the species until Sir George F. 

 Hampson was able to compare specimens critically. He was good 

 enough to look over a series of specimens that I sent him and from 

 these, supplemented by my own accvnnulations and by a splendid series 

 from Dr. Barnes, I have been able to reach what I think is a correct 

 conclusion. 



Concerning Orthosia helangcri Morr. there never was much doubt, 

 and Hampson refers this positively as equal to Graphiphora iiificita 

 Wlk. Of a specimen that I sent him for comparison, he said that it 

 was absolutely identical with Walker's type. 



Under Orthosia conradi Grote, specimens showing a considerable 

 range of variation appear in collections ; but the name citima Grote 

 appears rarely. Hampson refers citima as a synonym of conradi and 

 in this he seems to be right. The type of citima is in the Neumoegen 

 collection, and I sent a carefully compared specimen to Hampson, 

 who returned it " almost exactly like type of conradi and exactly like 

 citima of Schaus collection, compared with type." 



More or less mixed with the above, is a species that I have called 

 exornata Moeschl., and have distributed under that name. Of this 

 Hampson said that it did not agree with that species in the B. M. 

 collection, but seemed to him a variety of iiificita Wlk. I have now 



