162 



figured by Hiibner. The figures in other respects bear out this con- 

 clusion;" for while in the different copies of the Zutrage the coloring will 

 vary according to the colorist and according as the colors have changed 

 with age — two facts which in themselves should be sufficient to discard 

 names founded on mere figures — yet in the three copies which we have 

 examined the figures represent a smaller, feebler-bodied species, lacking 

 in the characteristic olivaceous hues, and much more roseate superiorly 

 and more highly colored with yellow and roseate on the under side. 

 The under surfaces of A_>'//«a are of tolerably uniform pale gray, with a 

 faint ochreous tinge, and in no specimen oi xjlina do we find the sharp 

 black line on the under side of the hind border of the secondaries charac- 

 teristic of Hiibner's figure. 



From these facts it will be seen that nothing can be absolutely 

 settled from Hiibner's description and figures, and so much has this been 

 felt by previous authors that they have not been able to identify Hiib- 

 ner's argi/lacea. Thus Guenee, who had evidently better material to 

 jiadge from than any previous, or for that matter subsequent, author 

 whom v/e can call to mind, questioned whether his granJipunda 

 {=x)'h'na) could be referred to argillacea, for the reason that this last is 

 more yellow, more distinctly marked, with the reniform concolorous, 

 marked with a very distinct white dot, and quite distinct on the under 

 surfcice Even INIr. Grc>te, notwithstanding the assurance with which he 

 identifies argillacea in the paper before the Association in 1874, express- 

 ed his uncertainty in his first published opinion on the subject. (Bulle- 

 tin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. i, p. 170, 1874.) 



The figures on our Plate IV, 7a, were kindly copied for us by Mr. 

 Skinner, from the copy of the Zutrage in the library of the American 

 Entomological Society. The coloring has been slightly lightened in the 

 printing, but otherwise shows the figures very well as they appear in 

 that copy. In the copy in Dr. Hagen's possession,* as also in that which 

 we have lately obtained for the Department of Agriculture, the figures 

 are somewhat darker; but all are uniform in those particulars which we 

 have just pointed out, and in which they differ from xylina. Hence, a 

 careful and candid study of the subject, so far as Hiibner's work per- 

 mits, leaves very grave doubt as to the identity olMx?, argillacea, and 

 though from the fact that we had accepted Grote's determinadon in the 

 first edition of this work (solely on his authority) we have tried to retain 

 it rather than make a change in this second edition; yet an unbiased 

 weighing of the facts presented by the published data would alone have 

 forced us to reject argillacea. We are entirely of Dr. Hagen's mind, as 



* This copy, as Dr. Hagen informs us, is on "gescliupftes Papier" witli what is 

 known as»old coloring in good condition. 



