128 



form is distinct from the European. Specimens of the two " may 

 be undistinguishable " according to Prof. Riley's subsequent 

 remarks. The characters given to separate the two are those of 

 variation. Again, that the species occurs from Canada to Ala- 

 bama, and westerly to California, may not have been known or 

 considered. But the principal difficulty in considering the two 

 distinct lies in the fact that, while the species is essentially dis- 

 tinguished by the male abdominal tufts, in this the. European 

 and American specimens agree. Like Pieris, the moth may have 

 followed commerce. It has of late years been quite abundant on 

 Staten Island. 



The above are, I believe, all the new Noctuidae in the Mis- 

 souri Reports. Among the identifications of Noctuidae, in the 

 same Reports, the following are erroneous: Prodcnia ComnielincB 

 Riley is not Abbot and Smith's species, but Lincatella of Harvey. 

 (It is possible that Flavimcdia and Lincatella are sexes of one 

 species.) Again the Agrotis Jaculifcra of Prof. Riley includes 

 Agrotis Tricosa of Prof. Lintner, and, perhaps, Agrotis Hcrilis 

 Grote. 



But the value of Reports on Insects injurious to agriculture 

 is hardly affected by incorrect scientific names being used. The 

 main point is, that the species should be clearly described, together 

 with its habits. I have always deprecated the custom of inter- 

 larding the text of such Reports with technical discussions on 

 matters connected with synonymy. 



NOTES ON SOME NORTH AMERICAN LEPIDOPTERA. 



By Arthur G. Butler. 

 ( Cofitinued from p. 103. ) 



In the present part of my paper I shall make a few remarks 

 upon the Bombyces sent to us by Mr. Edwards ; these consist of 

 eighteen recognized species. 



I commence with the Cossidw, since I feel satisfied that this 

 family, both in the habit of the larva and the complicated neura- 

 tion of the imago, shows distinct affinities to the typical Cast- 

 niidcB; the form of the wings more nearly approaches the SpJiiii- 

 gidce (compare MorpJicis smerintha ; see also Herrich-Schaffer's 

 Auss. Schmett. figs. 150-153, species of the same genus). It is 

 true that the antennas in some of the genera resemble those of 

 Lasiocanipida' or Notodontida\ but this, I take it, is due to rever- 

 sion to an ancestral character. 



I therefore would locate the CossidiX between the Sphinges 

 and Castni^e. 



XySTUS ROBINLE. Peck. 



This is a singularly SpJi'mgiform species, somewhat resem- 



