133 



A. byssus Edw. 



The species is placed in Limochores by Dyar, a genus, according 

 to his conception, with stigma in the $ sex, and in the key to the 

 species the form of this stigma is used in separating byssus from other 

 species. The true byssus however has no stigma as a reference to 

 the original description readily shows and falls apparently into the 

 genus Atrytone Scud., the $ 's showing great similarity to the ? 's of 

 logan Edw. In the Edwards' Collection the $ 's of arpa Bdv. & Lee. 

 are mixed with byssus which may have led to Dyar's misidentification. 



Genus Limochores Scud. 



Dyar diagnoses the genus (which he misspells Limochroes) as 

 possessing a stigma in the $ sex, having the point of the antennal 

 club long, and lacking spines on the mid tibiae ; these two latter char- 

 acteristics are directly contradicted by the type of the genus, man- 

 ataaqua Scud, as fixed by Scudder in 1872. Manataaqua has distinctly 

 spined mid tibiae and a short point to the antennal club and, as 

 pointed out by Dr. Skinner (Ent. News, 1905, 317), is very closely 

 related to ccrnes Bdv. & Lee. The remainder of the species included 

 in this genus by Dr. Dyar (except byssus and ychl) appear to agree 

 with the diagnosis; they form a group related to the genus Atrytone 

 Scud, but differing in possessing a stigma in the $ sex ; for the pres- 

 ent we would include these along with vestris in the genus Euphyes 

 Scud, as the position of vein 3 on primaries, which is used by Dyar 

 as a means of separating Euphyes and Limochores, needs further 

 study to prove its validity for generic purposes. 



Euphyes conspicua Edw. 



This name has page priority over pontiac Edw. ; although origin- 

 ally applied to the 9 sex only, the name conspicua must be used for 

 the species and replaces pontiac, which was the name given to the $ 

 sex. 



Genus Paratrytone Dyar. 



This genus cannot stand, being preoccupied by Godman & Sal- 

 vin (1900, Biol. Cent. Am. Rhop. Vol. II, p. 487) for two new Mex- 

 ican species of Hesperiidae, viz. rhexenor and polyclea, the former 

 being designated as type. We do not know these species, but God- 

 man & Salvin's characterization of the genus does not contradict that 

 of Dyar; for the present, therefore we think it wise to follow Dyar's 



