YPONOMEUTIDAE 
Genus Migza Wlk. (Enaemia Zell.) 
Our present lists, following doubtless Dyar’s “Notes on the 
Yponomeutidae” (Can. Ent. XXXII, 37, 1900) contain under this 
generic name three species, subfervens Wlk. psammitis Zell. and 
igninix Wlk. (syn. crassinervella Zell.) The species described by 
Hubner from Georgia (Zutr. Exot. Schmett. III, p. 24, figs. 489-90) 
as Eustixis pupula, which in the older lists was included in this group, 
has been entirely omitted; we have been unable to find any stated 
reason for this proceeding and can only surmise that it has either been 
confused with Eustivia pupula Hbn. (Zutr. Exot. Schmett. II, p. 24, 
figs. 327-8), the well known Pyraustid, or else that it was considered 
that the figure was unrecognizable and the name dropped. We have 
examined Hubner’s figure and consider that the latter course is cer- 
tainly justifiable and probably the wisest thing to do under the circum- 
stances. While the figure undoubtedly represents a species of the 
genus under consideration, the coloration is very crude and faultily 
applied ; the primaries are pale purple-white, the color extending over 
to the basal portion of secondaries, the cell of primaries being tinged 
with yellowish; the remainder of secondaries and the under side are 
red; the two rows of dots on primaries characteristic of the species 
of this genus are black. The crucial point however is that the veins 
of both primaries and secondaries are outlined in black; all known 
species have the secondaries uniform red, but one of the main points 
of difference between igninix Wlk. and a second species, common in 
Southern Texas, is that in the former a large portion of the veins on 
primaries are distinctly outlined in black, whereas in the 2nd species 
the venation is not apparent, the whole wing being uniformly white, 
with the exception of the ordinary dots. It is impossible to determine 
from Hubner’s figure whether these black lines were merely intended 
to indicate in a general way the venation, or whether they had ref- 
erence, at any rate in the case of the primaries, to distinct and definite 
markings; the name pupula can therefore, according to the view-point 
of the investigator, be applied to either of two species with equal justi- 
fication and should be dropped as ‘not sufficiently characterized.’ This 
