33 



772 Georgii, Gr. 



773 Antennata, Walk. 



Cinerea, Riley. 



774 Laticinerea, Gr. 

 'j'jS Cinerosa, Gr. 

 776 Unimoda, Lintn. 

 •JT] Tepida, Gr. 



778 Baileyi, Gr. 



779 Viridipallens, Gr. 



780 Querquera, Gr. 



781 Lepida, Lintn. 



782 Pexata, Gr. 



783 Thaxteri, Gr. 



784 Capax, G. df R. 



785 (?) Carbonaria, Harv. 



Liitlioniia, Hubn. 



786 Germana, Morr. 



Calocampa, Steph. 



787 Nupera, Lintn. 



788 Cineritia, Gr. 



^^iq Curvimacula, Morr. 



CUCULLIIN.^. 



Cleopltana, Boisd. 



790 Eulepis, Gr. 



791 Antipoda, Strk. 



Ciiciillia, Schr. 



792 Convexipennis, G. ^^ R. 



793 Asteroides, Guen. 



794 Postera, Guen. 



795 Florea, Guen. 



796 Intermedia, Spey. 

 I^fl Speyeri, Lintn. 



798 Laetifica, Lintn. 



799 Luna, Morr. 



800 Serraticornis, Lintn. 



MatricaricE, Behr. 



NOLAPHANIN>«. 



Adipsopliaiiesi, Gr. 



801 Miscellus, Gr. 



Crainbodes, Guen. 



802 Talidiformis, Guen. 



Nolapliaiia, Gr. 



803 Malana, Fitch. 



804 Tiiquetrana, Fitch. 



805 Zelleri, Gr. 



806 Labecula, Gr. 



ANOMIIN.^. 



Aiionii!«, Hubn. 



S07 Erosa, LIul>n. 

 80S Luridula, Guen. 

 809 Exacta, ILuhn. 



PteraetSioBix, Gr. 



Sio Bullula, Gr. 



Cliytorj za, Gr. 



811 Tecta, Gr. 



Aletla, Hubn.* 



812 Argillacea, Hubn. 



Xylina, Say. 



813 Hostia, Liarvey. 



LITOPROSOPIN.B. 

 liitoprosopus, Gr. 



814 Futilis. G. &!= R. 



815 Confligens, Walk. 



EUTELIIN/E. 



Eiitelia, Hubn. 



816 Pulcherrima, Gr. 



Mara!>»nialu$i, Gr. 



817 Ventilator, Gr. 



818 Histrio, Gr. 



INGURIN^. 



Iligiira, Guen. 



819 Abrostoloides, Guen. 



820 Delineata, Gtcen. 



821 Declinata, G) . 



822 Pygmaea, Hubn. 



823 Praepilata, Gr. 



824 Oculatrix, Guen. 



825 Flabella, Gr. 



* Prof. Riley doubts that Hubner's figure represents the Cotton Worm Moth, but the outhne and 

 color are accurate. The " white dots " are not distinct in caught specimens, and the discal marks, 

 while inaccurately given by the engraver, are sufficiently suggestive of the real markings. It is dis- 

 ingenuous of Prof. Riley to quote a Bahia species as if he had the real Argillacea^ but hesitates to 

 make the identification. What does Hubner's figure cover, if not our species ? The figure q{ Albi- 

 /z»^«, although much more doubtful, is accepted ; why is Argillacea rejected ? 



