38 



acute, with two slight oblique undulating blackish lines and with a diffuse and 

 indistinct submarginal brown line; discal lunule small, blackish. Hindwings 

 with two somewhat diffuse, brown lines. Length of body, 5 lines ; of the wings, 

 12 lines.' 



We found nothing in the collection that would fit in with the 

 above description; the species was unknown to Packard; Hulst (Ent. 

 News, VI, 11), on the strength of Moffat's determination, placed the 

 species as synonymous with argillacearia Pack, but quite recently 

 Swett (C. Ent. 48, 253) takes exception to this and claims the two are 

 distinct ; we certainly agree with him in the light of the description but 

 confess our inability to correctly identify the species ; perhaps some of 

 our Montreal friends who have collected in the Rouge River region 

 can solve the problem; for the present inceptaria Wlk. must remain 

 one of the troublesome 'unknowns.' 



Anisopteryx restituens Wlk. (1860, C. N. & G., V, 263; 1862, C. 

 B. M., XXVI, 1696). 



Correctly placed as a synonym of pometaria Harris. 



Scotosia affirmaria Wlk. (1860, C. N. & G., V, 264). 



This species seems to have been omitted in Dyar's Catalogue; it 

 proves to be the same species as Triphosa indubitata Grt. and takes 

 priority over Grote's name; Hulst (Ent. News, VI, 43) also gives this 

 reference but confuses affirmaria Wlk. with Scotosia affirmata Gn. 

 from Brasil, probably dropping the former name as a homonym; as 

 however Guenee's species will doubtless fall into a different genus we 

 imagine that the use of Triphosa affirmaria Wlk. for our N. American 

 species will be permissable. 



Macaria spilosaria Wlk. (1860, C. N. & G., V, 266; 1862, C. B. M., 

 XXVI, 1641). 



This name seems to have been omitted from Dyar's list ; the speci- 

 men in the collection is labelled 'Cidaria? spilosaria', agrees well with 

 the original description and proves to be a specimen of Earophila va- 

 saliata Gn. of the unicolorous brown form. Hulst states that the type 

 is lost (Ent. News, VI, 105) but he was presumably misled by the dif- 

 ferent generic reference ; in our opinion there is no question as to the 

 authenticity of the type. 



