75 



the northern part of the Continent and specimens before us from 

 Nepigon, Ont., one of which we figure, are quite indistinguishable 

 from specimens from Northern B. C. Atlantis appears to occur in 

 practically the same region but the $ 's at least should be separated 

 without much difficulty on account of the thickened veins on pri- 

 maries. 



A. chitone Edw. (PI. IX, Figs. 3, 4). 



This species was described from specimens taken by Neumoegen 

 in S. Utah and N. Arizona. In the Edwards' Collection \ $ \ 9 

 from S. Utah bear type labels, but unfortunately 1 $ 3 9 from Weber 

 Mts., Utah, which are not the same species, also bear type labels al- 

 though they cannot possibly be considered types. This has doubtless 

 led to the confusion that exists concerning the identity of chitone. 

 The true species is scarcely to be separated from what is generally 

 known as cornelia Edw. and the two will probably prove to be forms 

 of one species ; it shows considerable variation in the amount of sil- 

 vering of the spots on the underside, series before us from S. Utah 

 and Provo, Utah ranging from well-silvered specimens to those with 

 scarcely a trace of silver ; we figure both sides of typical $ specimens. 



A. ELECTA Edw. 



This species was described from 12 <3 4 9 , some taken in N. 

 Colo, by Mead in 1871, others in S. Colo, by Morrison in 1877; it is 

 evident by the description that the specimens showed considerable 

 variation and a recent examination of the series in the Edwards' Col- 

 lection has confirmed our suspicion that several forms at least (if not 

 species) were included under the one name. A $ in the series la- 

 belled 'Colo., Mead, 71' is marked type and as the label clearly shows 

 that it must have been one of the type lot we consider it would be 

 advisable to restrict the name to this specimen. The $ type of Cor- 

 nelia Edw. from Ouray, Colo., proves to be absolutely identical with 

 this type of electa and cornelia will therefore sink as a synonym. The 

 species is well illustrated by Holland (Butt. Book, PI. XI, Fig. 8); 

 we do not know what his figure of so-called electa (1. c. PI. X, Fig. 8) 

 represents ; it looks more like a his or aphrodite form. 



A. BREMNERI Edw. 



Wright's figures of this species (1. c. PI. XIII, Fig. 119) are 

 incorrect ; they represent rhodope Edw., the underside of the S being 

 much more typical than the figure given under the name rhodope 



