397 



distal joints of the hind tarsi appear to be relatively more widely an- 

 nulate in meyricki, but in lightly marked specimens this is likely to be 

 confusing. The lateral marks of the abdomen also differ in the two 

 species, but we have had such difficulty in finding specimens with rec- 

 ognizable abdominal vestiture, even in our long series, that we have 

 thought it inadvisable to use the character in the key. The difference 

 in palpi appears to be constant. The distribution as represented by 

 our series is dififerent, but mizar occurs in Mohave Co., Ariz., and 

 meyricki in S. Cal., and it is reasonable to expect them to overlap in 

 these regions. The male genitalia are very different. 

 We know nothing of the life history. 



14. OlDAEMATOPHORUS MEYRICKI n. Sp. PI. XLVI, fig. 10. PI. LIV, 



fig. 1- 



The description of the wings of mizar will apply also to this species; the 

 markings differ slightly in form, but otherwise are the same. The head differs 

 in having a contrasting white patch between the antennae. The palpi are brown 

 touched with white below. Thorax with the anterior half white, sharply lim- 

 ited, and with some white behind. Posterior margins of abdominal segments 

 whitish above. The abdomen is marked laterally with alternating oblique stripes 

 of dark gray-brown and white and has a lateral white line in the posterior half. 

 Legs as in misar, the tibial tufts very slight and rather darker than in that 

 species. Tarsi usually more broadly annulate with gray-brown and with a less 

 conspicuous difference between the first and outer joints on the posterior pair. 



Described from thirty specimens taken at San Diego, Cal., in April, May 

 and June. Holotype S and allotype in coll. Barnes. All of the paratypes, whose 

 total is 3 9 and 22 5, are also in coll. Barnes w^ith the exception of the fol- 

 lowing: $ and 5, U. S. N. M. No. 23468, $ coll. Fernald, S and 9 coll. 

 Meyrick, 1 $ of Cambridge Museum. 



Since we have described meyricki by pointing out the differences 

 between it and micar, no further discussion of this matter is necessary. 

 \Vc take this opportunity, however, to mention the apparent difference 

 in seasonal occurrence of the two. 



15. OlDAEMATOPHORUS GRATIOSUS Fish, PI. XLVI, fig. 11. 

 Ocdetnatophorus gratiosus Fish, Can. Ent. XITI, 73, 1881. 

 tAliicita gratiosa Fernald, Smith's List Lep. N. A. 87, 1891. 

 Pterothorus gratiosus Fernald, Pter. N. A. 54, 1898. 



Id., Bull. 52 U. S. N. M. 447, 1902. 

 Meyrick, Gen. Ins. C, 16, 1910. 

 Id., Wagner's Lep. Cat. pars 17, 23, 1913. 

 Barnes & McDunnoiigh, Check List 151, 1917. 

 Fish described the body and minor appendages thus: 



