16 Journal New York Entomological Society. [VoL xl 



series ; but the genitalic structures of the male are totally different. 

 They are shown on PI. I, Fig. 12, and a comparison with Fig. 6 

 will at once show the differences between the two. 



Mamesfra nmtilata was referred by me on superficial characters to 

 cufieafa and sutrina : unfortunately, while the example was a good 

 one I failed to get out the genitalia in good shape. What I obtained 

 is shown at PI. I, Fig. 11, and while it is not much, it is sufficient to 

 show that it is not of the ameata type at all. The latter is shown at 

 PI. X, Fig. 59, of Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV. Sutrina, which is 

 so nearly like ameata that it might be readily confused with it, has male 

 characters entirely different. Those of ameata have been already re- 

 ferred to ; those oi sutrina are figured in PI. I, Fig. 9. 



The male genitalia of Mamestra intentata are shown at PL I, Fig. 

 10, and they are almost identically like those pictured for M. inairva 

 in Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, PI. XI, Fig. 54. Yet, superficially 

 there is little resemblance between the two. Incurva is a clean-cut 

 ashen gray species with smooth vestiture and well-defined maculation, 

 the primaries rather narrow and short. Intentata, on the contrary, is a 

 powdery fuscous gray, the maculation all diffuse, hoary, the vestiture 

 rough. It is also decidedly larger and the primaries are broader, 

 more trigonate, the apices much better marked. A closer relative 

 superficially is found in M. leucogramnia, which has similar harpes, 

 but altogether different claspers (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, PL 

 VIII, Fig. 7). 



Maniesira ingravis has no close allies in superficial appearance, 

 and this is indicated also in the genital characters. PL I, Fig. 5, 

 illustrates a very distinctive structure which has no close parallel to 

 any other species figured by me. 



Mamestra cervina resembles a small litstralis and the genitalia bear 

 out the relationship so indicated. Cervina is here figured on PL I, 

 Fig. 13 and lustralis was pictured in the Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 

 PL VIII, Fig. II. The resemblance in type is obvious; but the 

 difference in detail is equally great. Perhaps the greatest exists in the 

 presence of the small accessory clasper in cervina, no appearance of 

 which was seen in lustralis. 



Mamestra neoterica looks like a small detracta with some minor 

 differences in type of maculation. When the genitalia of the males 

 are compared, these differences are enormously increased, though 

 there is no change in type. The shape of the harpes differs, not only 



