158 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi xv. 



genera and nearly 300 species, is at least not ideal. Personally I pre- 

 fer to keep them closely associated in one genus. 



The genus Eriopyga Gn., is another large aggregation, containing 

 over 200 species, and includes vi^2^\y o{ owx-TLeniocauipa, OrtJiodes, 

 PseiidortJiodes and Him ell a. 



Eriopyga melanopisY{.zxvc^%x\.., is the species that I had identified 

 z.^ perforata Grt., erroneously as it proves from an examination of the 

 type. 



E. orohia Harv., which I had considered as a variety or form of 

 oviduca, is here recognized as a good species, and that may be right. 

 The species in this series are much more closely allied than I had be- 

 lieved, and orobia looks like an obscure melanopis without the contrast- 

 ing stigma. 



Eriopyga planalis 2SvA agrotiformis Grt., are closely allied and will 

 prove sexes of one species, I think. Planalis is the male, agrotifor- 

 mis the female. 



Eriopyga consopita Gr., is separated from culea Gn., to which I 

 had referred it as a synonym. It is the reddish form in which the 

 median lines are almost lost, and with only two examples of each at 

 hand and these the extremes, they seem distinct enough ; but I have an 

 equally red form from Long Island, and have seen almost immaculate 

 forms of the creamy type. I am still of the opinion that the two are. 

 specifically identical. 



Orthodes nimia Gn., is referred to Eriopyga cynica Gn., instead 

 of to vecors Gn., and that is correct. 



Eriopyga (^Agrotis^ conar Strck., has Himella qnadristigmalis Sm., 

 as a synonym, and that is correct : I had previously made the refer- 

 ence in my check list. A specimen of Himella infidelis Dyar, sent in 

 by the describer, is the same species. Both contrahens and conar vary 

 similarly. My species was the well marked form with almost uniform 

 ground color ; Dr. Dyar described the other extreme with mottled 

 smoky wings and less contrasting maculation. Hampson, by the bye, 

 makes this reference in his addenda. 



Eriopyga affurata Hmpsn., is proposed for the species that I had 

 considered identical with the Q3stern furfurata, and this error of mine 

 had been previously recognized by Dyar who named the same form 

 communis : a fact also noted by Hampson in the addenda. 



NepJielodes Gn., contains only our species ; but for the common 

 form the name emmedonia Cram., replaces minians Gn. This is 



