62 
color as base of wing, slightly suffused with olivaceous, very irregular on outer 
margin, broad at costa with traces of two diffuse dark dashes, touching margin 
of wing between veins 6 and 7 with a dark arrow-like dash, outwardly rounded 
between veins 3 and 4 then greatly narrowed to inner margin, bordered out- 
wardly with whitish which tends to form a small patch above anal angle; ter- 
minal space beyond white shading dark with indistinct terminal broken black 
line; fringes dark, checkered. Secondaries deep smoky brown with traces of 
darker discal dot and subterminal banding. Beneath gray-brown with a large 
lunate discal spot on primaries and a small dot on secondaries and a more or 
less distinct subterminal line across both wings. 
@ Primaries olivaceous gray, suffused in appearance, rendering the 
maculation more or less indistinct; basal space shaded with brown especially 
above inner margin; t. a. line very indistinct with inward angle below cell; 
median space shaded with white around reniform, otherwise rather evenly 
olivaceous; t. p. line dark, distinct, inwardly oblique, projected outwardly on 
vein 4 and at inner margin; subterminal brown area suffused with olivaceous and 
but poorly defined from the terminal area by an indistinct waved whitish shade 
which forms a slight white spot above anal angle; an irregular dark terminal 
line. Secondaries pale brown with traces of discal dot and subterminal line. 
Beneath light brown with markings as in @. Expanse ¢ 38 mm., 2 48 mm. 
Hasitat. ¢@, St. Johns, Que. (July 1 and 11) (Chagnon) (type and co- 
type); @ Windsor Mills, Que. (ex larva on beach, July 4) (Winn); Yaphang, 
L. I. (July 22) (Doll) (type and cotype). The types are, through the kindness 
of Messrs. Chagnon and Winn, in Coll. Barnes; ¢ cotype with Mr. Chagnon; 
@ cotype in Mus. Brook. Inst. 
Although we have a good series of what appears to be this species 
before us from various Eastern localities, we refrain from making 
more than a single cotype of each sex, so that in the event of an error 
on our part the name may be easily fixed. Besides the type localities 
we have specimens from White Mts., N. H. (Coll. Hy. Edw.) ; Win- 
chendon, Mass. (Russell), Franconia, N. H. (Coll. Doll) ; Maine (Coll. 
Angus) ; Big Indian Valley, Catskills, N. Y. (Pearsall) ; Geneva, N. J. 
(Meyer); Montreal, Que. (Winn). 
The @’s, especially when faded, very closely approach the form 
of basiflava without yellow at base of wing; in a general way they are 
however more even and smoother in coloration and the space between 
t. a. and t. p. lines on inner margin is wider; the former line is also 
much less jagged. The ?’s may be distinguished from basiflava 9’s 
by their suffused appearance and lack of definite markings in basal and 
subterminal areas, single specimens, especially when aged, are however 
rather hard to place and breeding will be necessary to determine the 
range of variation of the two species. 
