388 



5. OiDAEMATOPHORUs GUTTATUS Walsinghani. PI. XLV, fig. 16. PI. 

 LI, fig. 5. 



■fOcdewatopliorus cretidactylus Zeller (not Fitch), Verb. z.-b. Ges. Wien, XXIV, 

 444, 1874. 



Walsinghani, Pter. Cal. Ore. 35, 1880. 

 Ocdcmatophorus guttattis Walsingham, Pter. Cal. Ore. 36, pi. II, f. 12, 1880. 

 XAlucita guttata Fernald, Smith's List Lep. N. A. 87, 1891. 

 Ptcrophorus guitatus Fernald, Pter. N. A. 53, pi. IX, ff. 12, 13, 1898. 



Id., Bull. 52 U. S. N. M. 446, 1902. 



Meyrick, Gen. Ins. C, 17, 1910. 



Id., Wagner's Lep. Cat. pars 17, 25, 1913. 



Barnes & McDunnough, Check List 151, 1917. 

 The description of matheiaianus applies equally well to yuttatus as re- 

 gards pattern. The dark markings in guttatus, however, are all of a deeper 

 shade and therefore in much greater contrast with the white areas, and are 

 rather conspicuously sprinkled with blackish scales on the primaries. This 

 iroration tends to form longitudinal streaks. The legs differ from the two 

 preceding species in that the tarsi are provided with well marked, though often 

 broken, brown annuli. The abdomen is much like that of cupatorii but has 

 the transverse brown shade less conspicuous and the dorsal dots more numer- 

 ous, in the form of a row of median tufts of brown scales, the largest on the 

 fourth segment and the others decreasing in size away from it. Expanse 

 23-25 mm. 



The male genitalia differ from those of cupatorii in the absence 

 of tufts from the outside of the valves and from those of mathciinanus 

 in the form of the left harpe, which appears to be constantly different. 



Distribution : Type locality Pit River, Cal. We have the species 

 from the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mts., Cal., June and July, 

 and Colo, and Utah, July. A specimen in the Cambridge Museum 

 from Phoenix, Ariz., appears to belong here. 



In general appearance the species might be confused with dark 

 specimens of either 7natlu-zi.<ianiis or cupatorii, but such cases should 

 be relatively few. The tarsi and abdomen are excellent distinguishing 

 features, and the nine slides which we have inade of the genitalia 

 of the three species indicate differences which may rasonably be re- 

 garded as constant. 



The confusion in the literature regarding cretidactylus and cupa- 

 torii, and our own confusion of guttatus and mathcwianus has led to 

 a very careful study of these species with the results as presented here. 

 In the first place it is generally agreed that Zcller's cretidactylus was 

 not that of Fitch, and since it came from \'ancouver Is. it is a safe 



