I02 



cause I think it is justified. Cinerea, as I know by rearing it from the larva 

 is an exceedingly variable species, as some allied European moths are well- 

 known to be. My description included what Grote subsequently described as 

 laticinerea and cinerosa. Now, if the three forms are worthy of being 

 ranked as species ("which I by no means admit), why should any one of them 

 more than another have been chosen as typical of cinerea? In answering 

 the question it will be found that opinion has played its part in the matter as 

 against fact, and that the question as to which is antetuiata is quite legitimate ! 

 My original description, as stated, included them all, and in fact the cinerosa 

 form heads my series. But this name was already preoccupied by Guenee in 

 the same genus, and I would propose the name Grotei in its stead, and would 

 thus label the species : 



Xyltna antennata. Walker, 

 var. Grotei, Riley, 

 var. laticmerea, Grote. 



— C. V. Riley. 

 Egg of Hemileuca Yavapai, Neum. — Laid in belt-like masses, fast- 

 ened by a gummy secretion, smooth, rounded, the shape varying according to 

 position in the mass, the inner eggs more elevated and rounded, the outer more 

 elongate, the top flattened, hardly depressed, the surface mottled with a darker 

 green ; general color light green. — A. R Grote. 



