aah AO 
that if Walker's description was in anv way agcurate, it could not pos- 
sibly refer to this species, and in casting about for a species to which it 
could possibly be referred, I picked out of our series of Hyphaniria cunea, 
specimens in every way agreeing with the description. So certain did I 
feel of this, that I called Prof. Riley's attention to it as a necessary cor- 
rection of synonymy, and afterward stated the conclusion before the 
Entomological Society of Washington. 
Walker's description is as follows: ‘‘ White. Tarsi with black 
bands. Fore coxz and fore femora luteous, with black spots on the 
inner side. J/a/e —Head and fore part of the thorax with a slight testa- 
ceous tinge. Primaries with four very oblique, very imperfect and ir- 
regular bauds, composed of pale brown dots. Length of the body 6 to 
7 lines; of the wings 16 to 20 lines.” 
In 1868 Grote and Robinson state that of three specimens in the 
B. M. Collection one female was SZilosoma virginica, the other speci- 
mens, male and female, representing a species approaching /Z. cunea in 
markings, but stouter and with the antenne and palpi of Spz/osoma. 
In 1875 Mr. Butler speaks as follows: ‘‘The only examples now 
representing this species in the collection are what I believe to be a male 
variety of H. cunea, and a female (?) Spilosoma virginica, without ab- 
domen; what Mr, Walker may have done with the species since Mr. 
Grote described it, it is impossible to say.” 
This note of Butler’s seems to have entirely escaped American Lepi- 
dopterists. Strecker did not refer to it in describing his anfigone, and 
Mr. Grote seemed not to know of it when in 1883 he referred antigone 
as a synonym of congrua. Mr. Hulst in his paper assumed the correct- 
ness of Mr, Grote’s identification of congrua, and shows that the species 
varies sufficiently to include the form described by Mr, Strecker. No 
attempt seems to have been made to reconcile Walker’s description with 
the species as identified by Mr, Grote, and in view of the facts that the 
description cannot possibly be made to fit anfigone Strecker, that it agrees 
perfectly with specimens of 7. cunea, and that Mr. Butler finds a spe- 
cimen of cunea as a type, it seems to me thit comgrua Walker, must be 
referred as a synonym of H. cunea Dru., and congrua { Grote, must be 
cited as a synonym of anfigone Strecker. 
Mr. Henry Edwards recently showed me in his collection a species 
of Sprlosoma apparently distinct from all described species, and which 
agrees very well with Walker’s description save in the maculation of the - 
abdomen. 
The genus Sfz/osoma needs revision, and as Mr. Edwards has all 
the described as well as some new species, he will probably undertake 
the task shortly. 
