180 



P. conarata Grossb. (PI. XII, Fig. 4). 



We fail to separate this species from colorata Grt. the types of 

 which are in the Brooklyn Inst. Both show a rather ruddy coloration 

 on the primaries and fairly heavy terminal dark shades on the under- 

 side of both wings. P areata Grossb. (Fig. 5) is very closely allied 

 but may usually be distinguished at once by the prominent discal spot 

 on the secondaries. We figure $ 's of both species from Redington, 

 Arizona. 



P. DELECTATA Hist. (PI. XIV, Fig. 9). 



The species was described from 1 $ from Colorado and this 

 specimen is in the Neumoegen Coll., the type in the Hulst Coll. from 

 Arizona being spurious. We doubt greatly if this should be made 

 synonymous with muscariata Gn. which from the description seems to 

 be closely allied to respersata Hist., which occurs in California as well 

 as Colorado; Boisduval (1869, Lep. de la Cal. p. 91) lists muscariata 

 as having been taken by Lorquin so it is probable the types came from 

 the region of Placer Co., Calif. It is to be sincerely hoped that M. 

 Oberthur will continue publishing figures of Guenee's Geometrid 

 types so that we can definitely establish their identity. We figure a 

 9 from Colorado which agrees with the type of delectata. 



P. PALLIDATA Pack. 



Listed at present in the synonymy of calif orniata Pack, the 

 species proves distinct and very close to parcata Grossb.; the type in 

 the Cambridge Mus. is a 9 and is the species figured by ourselves 

 (Cont. II (3) PI. VI, Figs. 10-12) doubtfully as parcata, 



P. subacuta Hist. (PI. XIV, Fig. 10). 



This species was described under Diastictis from specimens from 

 Colorado and Nevada and as a $ specimen is mentioned in the de- 

 scription we should suppose that the 6 antennae were pectinate. The 

 only types we have been able to discover however were 1 9 from 

 Colorado in the Hulst Coll. and 1 9 from Nevada in the Neumoegen 

 Coll. ; the former is the same as respersata Hist, and the latter from 

 our notes would also appear to agree. Apart from the supposed pec- 

 tinate $ antennae the original description fits excellently with these 

 specimens and we believe the only course open is to limit the type to 

 the specimen in the Hulst Coll. and presuppose an error on Hulst's 

 part regarding the $ antennae; in this case subacuta becomes a syn- 



