60 THE REPORT OF THE No. 19 



some of the males and nearly all the females were immaculate, only one or two of the females 

 being lightly spotted, Nos. 17-22 showing the range of variation in the spring part of 

 brood A. 



As already mentioned, nearly all of brood B had emerged in July and August, 1900, but 

 three or four emerged in the spring of 1901, and No. 28 is a male of that brood which went over 

 winter, showing the same tendency to heavy marking in the spring brood, and this feet has a 

 very strong bearing upon the question of the specific distinctness of these two forms, for if both 

 belonged to one species, Textor having only a spring brood in this region, should be a spotted 

 form instead of being an immaculate one. 



In the summer of 1900, I also secured part of a brood of //. Textor larva; on Montreal 

 Mountain, and sent a portion to Dr. Dyar, but he did not succeed in getting any through. I 

 was successful with those I retained, but, curiously enough, a few emerged in the autumn, but 

 those which emerged in the spring came out a little later than the Cuneas of brood A. 



The latter emerged between the 5th and 15th May, with one belated one on the 20th, and 

 another on 26th, while the TextQrs did not begin to appear till the 19th May, and came out be- 

 tween that date and 2nd June. Dr. Dyar succeeded with the portion of brood AB which I sent 

 him, but, unfortunately, I did not with the ones I retained. They, were I fear, confined too 

 long in a glass jar, and so became unhealthy before being transferred to a cage, and died off 

 shortly after I left on my second trip to England, so here again we were unable to compare 

 results. 



A very important point wh'ch i brought out in my experiments was the refusal of Gunea 

 and Textor to mate. At least three times was the experiment tried, when conditions were 

 favourable, both moths being freshly emerged, but always with the same result, although they 

 were left together for days. That no mating took place, I am positive, as close watch was kept 

 at frecjuent intervals, and in a mating of Ounea which was timed, copulation continued from 

 about 11 p. m. till about 8 p. ni. the following evening. The Vwieaft, however, mated all too 

 readily among themselves. 



To sum up the results of my experiments extending from the summer of 1899 to the spring 

 of 1901, I find : 



1st. That Hiipliaidria Cviiea vari( s in both sexes fiom heavily spotted to absolutely imma- 

 culate. 



2i)d. That Hnjili nutria Tvxtor is invariably immaculate. 



3rd. That the two forms differ markedly and constantly in the larval state, while C}inea 

 especially varies within its own range. 



4th. That the two forms will not mate. 



5th. That, other things being c<iual, the sjjring brood of Citnea is more heavily marked than 

 the summer brood. 



(5th. That in the north Cvneu tends to become a single brooded, heavily marked form. 



I therefore contend that my results prove beyond reasonable doubt that we have two valid 

 species, though in the imago stage it is impossible to distinguish between an immaculate Gunea 

 and a Ti'xfor, and that the name given by Harris should therefore be i^estored to full specific 

 rank. 



Now, as to the synonymy, in Neumoegen & Dyar's "Preliminary Revision,'^ the name 

 Var. Budea Hiibner was used for Textor, but this reference was evidently founded on a misai)- 

 prehension as Hiibner's figure shows a moth with a single dot on each fore wing, exactly as in 

 fig. 14 of my pla*e, and the description mentions this spot, as I am now informed by 

 Dr. Dyar. 



•Journal N. Y. Knt. Soc. T. 178. 



