177 



Camptogramma neomexicana Hist. 



The type should be restricted to the 9 from Las Cruces, N. Mex- 

 ico in the Hulst Collection ; various spurious types from Texas are 

 in both this collection and that of the Brooklyn Institute. The species 

 was described from specimens from N. Mexico, Colorado, and Flor- 

 ida, but in view of the name we think the type should be restricted as 

 above mentioned ; the other types we could not find in any case. 



EUPHYIA GRANDIOSA Hist. 



The type of this species must be considered to be the 9 in the 

 National Museum, No. 3927 which evidently served for the original 

 description; the type in the Hulst Coll. (probably the specimen men- 

 tioned in a note below the description) is an ordinary dark olivaceous 

 implicata Gn. of the form described by Packard as multilineata; the 

 National Museum specimen is larger, of a rather pinkish color gen- 

 erally and will probably represent an Arizona race at least. 



EUPITHECIA MISTURATA Hist. (PI. XIV, Fig. 6). 



The species was described from specimens from Soda Spgs., 

 Calif., and Hot Spgs., N. Mex., and a type from each of these locali- 

 ties is in the Hulst Collection; as it is very probable that they do 

 not belong to one species, the New Mexico specimen being possibly 

 referable to huachuca Grossb., we would designate the type of mis- 

 turata as the Soda Spgs., Calif., specimen in the Hulst Collection 

 labelled 'Type'. We figure a specimen from Shasta Retreat (about 

 1 mile from the type locality) where Dr. McDunnough found it very 

 plentiful in 1915. 



EUPITHECIA PACKARDATA Taylor. 



The name packardata was proposed by Taylor (C. Ent. XL, 277) 

 to supplant geminata Pack, which was erroneously stated to be pre- 

 occupied by Eupithccia geminata G. & R. As a matter of fact gem- 

 inata G. & R. was described (Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. VI, 29) under the 

 genus Larentia and only at a later date wrongly transferred by the 

 authors (Ann. N. Y. Lye. N. H. VIII, 459) to the genus Eupithecia, 

 its proper place being in the genus Cladara Hulst. 



The name geminata Pack, will therefore be perfectly valid in the 

 genus Eupithecia and will supplant packardata Tayl. if Dr. Taylor be 

 correct in his limitation of the name to the 9 type as being a species dis- 

 tinct from the $ type which according to him falls to coagulata Gn. We 



