76 CATOCALA NEBULOSA. 



none of these bands are connected with each other. On secondaries the mesial and marginal bands extend to 

 abdominal margin. Fringes on all wings yellow. 



Habitat. Middle, and Western States to the Mississippi ; rather rare. 



In the original description of this species we have another instance of how utterly valueless, aye, worse 

 Uian valueles.s, are such things unaccompanied with figures; Mr. W. H. Edwards' description (in Proc. 

 Eut. Soc, Phiia., 1864,) is better than nine-tenths of such things generally are, and, moreover, is written in 

 language that can be understood, nevertheless, after a lapse of two years, so little had this description been 

 recognized, that Messrs. Grote & Robinson re-described this, one of'' the largest of our Catocala;, and one so 

 prominently unlike all others, as a new species, and even made remarks comparative concerning the difference 

 between Edwards' Ncbulosa and their Pouderosa, but I had better quote their own words literally and in full 

 which lollow their technical description : " Several specimens examined. Resembles the description of C. Nebu- 

 lona hdwch., but differs in several important particulars, the color of the ordinary spots, conformation of the 

 median band on the under surface of the secondaries and the general aspect of these on the upper surface .seem 

 to be different, while some of the minor details, such as the color of the scales clothing the nervules etc will 

 not apply properly to C. Ponderom, nobis."* I believe Mr. A¥. H. Edwards published no protest, perhaps 

 he cared nothing al)oiit it, or it may be that their description was as unintelligible to him as his was to them, 

 for theirs was a third longer and infinitely more abstru.^e and grandiose, and, in consequence, he may not have 

 been aware of the identity of his Nebulosa and their " Pondero.sa, nobis." Six years later Mr. Grote ao-ain 

 described it under the name of Pouderosa, giving Nebulosa as a synonym ; after his technical description comes 

 the following (quoted in full):- "Mr. Edwards compares the secondaries quite wrongly with those of C. Cero- 

 gama,t whuli C. Pouderosa in nowise resembles. The specific name chosen by Mr. Edwards had already 

 been used five times in the family; " + by this we understand that he has at la.st "became acquainted with the 

 fact that Nebulosa, Edwds., and Ponderosa, Grote & R., are the same ; but in this instance it appears that the 

 law of priority must succumb, in order that the G. & R. may still obtain, at all events the G., for were that 

 stricken off in all instances where it is attached to synonyms, the taint of synonymy would be removed from 

 the great bulk of N. American Heteroceres. No! Ponderosa must stand because Nebulosa "had already 

 been used five times in the family." Now, how has it been used five times? it has been applied to an Agro- 

 tis,§ a Mamestra.ll a Hadena,T[a Dryobota** and a Taeniocampa,tt the latter, however, is Nebulosus, not 

 fv.!,,, „?f ' '^i' '" '""^"^^^'^ 'i'^' ""™° °"'y holds for one, Mamestra Nebulosa, Hufnagel ; as regards the others, 



imestra 

 n and 

 ^ ,, , . Grote's 



own words will, however, support me in retaining Mr. Edwards' prior name of Nebulosa, for he says, (in 

 speaking of another species, C. Marmorata,) " with regard to the specific name, this is already used in the 

 ^octuidffi for a species of Hadena. It has been hitherto the custom to reject such names, but this should not 

 be done where, as in the present case, there is no danger of confusion."|||| The Hadena alluded to is a small 

 f.„ xr„i ."i" ", -.^^ La'jrador, Greenland, Iceland and northern Scotland; it is a little smaller than Mames- 



rever, is not 1 

 ich later; but, 



. - ,. , ■ -1 "i' ' » " ' "— Jpying a posi...v^.i c,^ l.jc uci- 



mination of the great family of the Noctuida?, being designated by the same name as one of the small obscure 

 mollis comi)rised in the widely different genera of Mamestra or Hadena which stand near the head of that 

 family, seems to be as useless as it is inconsistent. 



*Proc. Ent. Soc, I'hila., Vol. W, p. 23, (1866). 



iPPn mnnil,!Tn'J»'''"'-' *V'T''"' r ^^r *''°'f "' .'•^'S-'l^'ljnf ^r. Ed>yard8 comparing C. Nebulosa to C. Cerogama, he corrected about nine- 

 teen montlis later, iii the (.anadian Entoinoloijist, Vol. V, p. 162, (Sept 1873) 



t Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, Vol. IV, ji, 12, (Jan., 1872). 

 i Agrotis Decora, Hub., 4.5 ; Nfhnlom, Hub., 402, Sam. Eur. Schmett 



II Mamestna Nebulosa Hufnagel, Berlinisches Mag., Vol. Ill, 418, (1767) ; Bimaculosa, Esper. 

 PchJett. r251 ^864? ^^^"''^-^^'^ I'"^- 183, (1787); Nebulosa Vieweg, Tab. Verz., T. I, (1789); Sordem Werneburg, Beitrage zur 



**Dryobota Protea, BorUh., Nat Gep. Eur. Schmett., IV, 386, (1792); Nebulosa Walch, Naturforscher, XIII, p. 29, (1779). 



i}LiZ"oXXn;il':ri,^l35, (m "^' '^^' ^''^' *''•'''• ^'^^"'"'"^ ""^°''*' ^^'P- B""-''^^ P- 120, (1803-1820). 



'ii Menetries, Cat. Miis., St. Petersburg, Lep. I, p. 73, (1855) 



nil Grote, Trans. .\m. Ent. Soc, Vol. IV, p. 7, (1872). 



n Hadena Exulis, Lefebvre, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 392, (1836). Mannoraia, Ilerrich-Schieffer 



