HESPERIOIDEA OF AMERICA 83 



12. P0LITE8 STIGMA 



Pamphila stigma Skinner, Can. Ent. xxviii, 188, 1896. 

 Skinner, Ent. News xi, pi. n, f. 15, 16, 1900 (15 Co-type). 

 Kellogg, Am. Ins. pi. ix, ff. 15, 16, 1904 (15 Cotype). 



Texas, New Mexico. 



I have seen the type of stigma in the Strecker collection, and it is sim- 

 ilar to brettus but dark, heavily marked above, and has a very large stigma. 

 Fib ex is intermediate between it and brettus but at present I am not pre- 

 pared to agree with Dyar's suggestion that they are all the same species 

 (Jn. N. Y. Ent. Soe. xin, 128, 1905). Godman and Salvin make stigma 

 synonymous with vibex (Biol. Cent.-Am., Ehop. n, 480, 1900). 



13. POLITE8 CHUSKA 



Hesperia chuslca Edw., Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. IV, 346, 1873. 



I know nothing of this species. It is placed between sabuleti and draco 

 in Barnes and McDunnough 's Check List, but this was done merely with 

 a knowledge of the description. The type locality is Arizona. 



Genus CATIA Godman & Salvin 



Catia G. & S., Biol. Cent.-Am., Rhop. h, 481, 1900. Type Hes- 

 peria druryi Latreille. 



Catia is structurally similar to Polites 

 but differs in the long slender apiculus 

 of the antennae, which always exceeds 

 the diameter of the club, and in the form 

 of the male stigma. The stigma is com- 

 posed of a velvety black patch below the 

 end of the cell and a similar patch above 

 the inner third of the anal vein, with F i g . 26. cat™ otho a. & s. a. 

 large, silky, gray scales between. In the Club of ant€nnae ' b ' Neuraticn 

 bleached wing it appears as two similar oval spots, one on each 

 side of vein 1. Fig. 26. 



In describing Catia Godman and Salvin say of the peculiar 

 structure of the stigma that it ' ' is so remarkable that we think 

 it of sufficient importance to put the species possessing this char- 

 acter into a separate genus." Otho is closely related to the 

 species now included in Polites and was formerly associated with 

 some of them in Thymelicus, but the form of the apiculus sep- 

 arates them, and no fundamental or superficial similarity can 

 be traced in the stigmata. 



