io6 

 A RECENT SOUTH AMERICAN PAPER ON MOTHS. 



By Aug. R. Grote. 



I have received from its author, Sen. Carlos Berg, a pamphlet 

 of fifty-six pages, in large octavo, without plates, entitled 

 '•Farrago Lepidopterologica," being a contribution to the study 

 of the fauna of the Argentine Republic. Its perusal has only 

 intensified the feeling I have long had (since studying the Cuban 

 moths) that we need a knowledge of the South American species 

 to get a proper idea of our own. I have shown what a strong 

 Southern admixture there is in our Sphingidse and in other 

 groups the same or a similar state of things will be found to 

 exist. While some genera {Catoca/a) have not crossed the tropics, 

 Pliisia biloba is found from Canada to Chili. The mass of equa- 

 torial forms are not known to us in the United States to any 

 extent. The collection of the British Museum must be studied. 

 We must depend now largely on Mf. Butler to give us informa- 

 tion. 



A few points I must discuss with Sen, Berg, chiefly concern- 

 ing the terminology adopted by him. Pie uses EutJiisiDiotia in- 

 stead of Endyras. He is wrong in considering XanthopastisdiS = 

 EutJiisanotia {Tiniais, etc.) It is a composite genus in the Ver- 

 zeichniss, containing five ill-assorted species. Hubner takes 

 tiviais and associates it with Unio in the Zutrage, leaving Bois- 

 duval free to erect a genus for U^iio. Whether Unio was pub- 

 lished by Hubner before he refigures Tiniais, my notes do not 

 tell me, and I have not the Zutrage at this moment. It is of no 

 consequence, because the genus is not adequately founded. 

 Eudryas is first properly limited by Packard. It contains three 

 North American species, Unio, Grata and Sta. Johannis. Berg's 

 new species Platensis is, if I understand his remark as to the front, 

 no Eudryas, perhaps a Copidryas. Hubner evidently considered 

 Tiniais and Unio as congeneric, and differing from Xantliopastis. 

 He associates them, and Boisduval's term must on all accounts 

 be kept for our North American genus. Again, I would like to 

 know how Megalopyge is substituted for Lagoa. Harris had a 

 perfect right to establish his genus in 1841, because Hubner has 

 two species in Megalopyge and if the first {lanata) is a Lagoa, 

 what is the second {Niida) ? Where Hubner has more than one 

 species, the person who separates them has clearly the right to 

 take any. The first is not Hubner's type, by any rule of zoolog- 

 ical nomenclature. The " el tipo del genero Megalopyge'' is an 

 assumption of Sen. Berg's. The right name of the genus is 

 Lagoa (= Pimela, Clem.). Whatever Abb. and Smith's species are 

 Crispata of Packard is distinct and valid. I believe that Abbot's 

 figures may not represent a different species. I have positively 

 identified opercnlaris. My fresh Georgia specimen is in British 

 Museum so labeled. Rubbed Texan specimens may be " Pyxi- 



