96 



more pronounced than in other species; Holland's figure (PI. XVII, 

 Fig. 31) seems correct although a poor specimen. 



P. mylitta Edw. 



This species was originally described (1861 Proc. Acad. N. Sci. 

 Phil., p. 161) from specimens from Texas, Kansas, and California; 

 later (1864 Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. II, 504) Edwards claims that collina 

 Behr, described from California, is a synonym and states that he had 

 several specimens included under mylitta as varieties which were ap- 

 parently good species ; two of these Behr had described as campestris 

 and pratensis and Edwards (p. 505) now describes a fourth as pallida 

 from Texas and Kansas which to use his own words "I also supposed 

 to be a variety of mylitta;" it would seem therefore that by this action 

 Edwards restricted his mylitta to the Californian specimens. Recently 

 we examined the series of mylitta in the Edwards' Collection with a 

 view to determining just what his conception of this species might be; 

 the series is very mixed ; a specimen from S. Colo, which we consider 

 to be pallida Edw. is labelled ' 2 type' but this must be rejected as 

 such as the locality is not mentioned in the original description ; sev- 

 eral specimens from various localities are present representing the 

 usual conception of mylitta (Holland, Butt. Book, PI. XVII, Fig. 41), 

 one from Mt. Hood being labelled type ( !), and finally a $ labelled 

 'mylitta, Calif, type' which is neither of the above forms but appar- 

 ently a peculiar race of montana, possibly from a lower altitude. 

 There is nothing definite to prove that this specimen was one of the 

 original types and as it is well known that Edwards never marked 

 his specimens at the time of description as types but very often at a 

 later date wrote 'type' in red ink on some other specimen which he 

 considered typical (a fact abundantly proved by numerous specimens 

 in his collection) we consider it the safest policy to follow Edwards' 

 own statement that mylitta was identical with collina Behr and leave 

 the conception of the species unchanged; it seems fairly evident from 

 the description of collina Behr and Oberthur's figure of epula Bdv. 

 that these two names refer to the same species. 



P. pallida Edw. 



The species was described in 1864 from Texas and Kansas ; in 

 the Edwards' Collection the only specimen we could find in which the 

 locality agreed with the description was a 5 labelled 'type $ camillus 

 v. pallida, Texas'. This label must obviously have been put on at a 



