NOTES ON CERTAIN SPECIES OF MAMESTRA. 



By John B. Smith, Sc. D. 



In I1S52, Ciuencc (Icscribcd Hccatcra laiidahilis in Vol. II. p. 

 j^o of his Xoctuelitcs, and fij^ured it very recognizably on PI. VIII, 

 figure 4. The locality given was "Ameriquc septentrionale," 

 Coll. Doubleday, and the larva was described from a figure of 

 Abbot. The type is now in the British Museum. 



In 1856, Walker described Hapalia indicans in Vol. X. p. 359 

 of the British Museum Catalogue, and records two specimens, cT 

 and '- from E. Florida, presented by Doubleday. In 1857, in 

 Vol. XI. p. 51 r, of the same publication, Walker refers to Hecatera 

 landabilis Gn., gives a brief latin diagnosis and records 4 examples: 

 2 from East Florida out of the Doubleday collection, and 2 with- 

 out locality out of the Milne Collection. He apparently had no 

 idea that this was the same species that he had described in a 

 previous volume. 



In 1868, Grote and Robinson referred indicans as a synonym 

 of landabilis, in the Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. II, p. 78, after examin- 

 ing the types, and that reference was accepted by me and more 

 recently by Hampson. 



In i860, Wallcngren described Hecatera sirigicollis in the Wien. 

 Ent. Monatschr., IV, 170, and gave the locality as California. 

 That species remained unidentified in our lists until i8qi when, 

 in nn- revision of Alamestra, I re-pul)lished the description with- 

 out, at that time, suggesting its identity with any other described 

 species. In 1893, after seeing the British Museum collections, I 

 referred the species, in my Catalogue of Noctuidae to landabilis, 

 and in this reference Ham])son has also followed me. 



In 1875, Grote described Mamestra illandabilis in V^ol. VII, 

 p. 27, of the Canadian Entomologist, differentiating it very briefly 

 from landabilis. It is recorded from California and from \'an- 

 couver Island, out of the Henr>^ Edwards Collection, and both 

 sexes were present. In 188 1, Mr. Grote lists illandabilis as a 

 variety of landabilis, and again points out certain color ditTerences 

 between the eastern and western specimens: difterences which, 

 unfortunately, are not constant nor, as the distribution given 

 proves, very useful in separating the species. In my revision of 

 1891, I accepted ]\Ir. Grote's nmking of the species, but was in 

 error as to the form to which the name illandabilis should be 

 ajiplied. In my figure of the genitalia I obviously got hold of 



154 



