17 



PLATE VII 



Fig. I. AcRONYCTA ALBARUFA Grt. South. Pines, N. C. S. 



2. AcRONYCTA ALBARUFA Grt. South. Pines, N. C. 9 . 



3. AcRONVCTA AFFLICTA Grt. South. Pines, N. C. ? . 



We think our identification is correct. Our specimen agrees well with 

 both Grote's and Smith's figures, besides having that deep greenish-bhick shad- 

 ing on primaries mentioned in Grote's description. 



4. AcRONYCTA BRUMOSA Gn. South. Pines, N. C. S. 



5. AcRONYCTA BRUMOSA Gn. South. Pines, N. C. 9 . 



Our specimens agree well with Guenee's description and Hampson's 

 figure of brumosa, also with Smith's figure of persuasa Harv., placed by Hamp- 

 son, who has types of both species, as a synonym. We have further had larvae 

 on oak from N. Carolina which agree with Guenee's description of hrunwsa and 

 which have emerged into similar specimens to those figured. 



6. AuTOGRAPHA ALBAViTTA Ottol. San Diego, Calif. $ . 



Agrees with type which is in our possession. Smith has described the 

 same insect under the name Beltrensia hutsonii; we have a specimen which has 

 been compared with his type and the two species appear identical. As to the 

 correct generic position we are in doubt. 



7. Lycophotia lubricans Gn. (syn. associans Wlk.). South. Pines, 



N. C. $. 

 This is the true lubricans Gn., with dark chocolate brown thora.x and 

 primaries and sHghtly smoky secondaries in $ sex. It is a very different look- 

 ing insect to the common form of the Eastern States and Canada as figured by 

 Hampson under name lubricans; the hyaline white secondaries of $ in this 

 latter species would alone separate it. We cannot understand why the two forms 

 have been lumped together, especially when so many western so-called species 

 have been differentiated on much less obvious points of distinction. The name 

 illapsa Wlk. should be retained in our opinion for this latter form. 



8. AcRONVcTA falcula Grt. Cartwright, Man. $ . 

 g. AcRONVCTA PRUNi Harr. South. Pines, N. C. $ . 



This is certainly the pruni Harr. of Smith & Dyar's Revision (p. 123) 

 and agrees well with figure (PI. IV, fig. 4). Hampson unites prxini with clar- 

 escens Gn. (Cat. Lep. Het, VIII, 80), but his figure (PI. CXXIV, 29), pre- 

 sumably of Guenee's type, is not at all similar; Smith (Ent. News. XXII, 313) 

 thinks Hampson's figure of hasta Gn. is that of pnmi Harr. This may be so; 

 at any rate we agree with Smith that it does not correspond with Guenee's 

 description of hasta and that until further conclusive evidence is forthcuniing 

 the name pruni should stand. 



10. PoLiA (Mamestra) spiculosa Grt. Redington, Ariz. $. 



11. Polygrammata hebraeicum Hbn. South. Pines, N. C. $. 



12. Hadenella cervoides B. & McD. Redington, Ariz. Type $ . 



This proves to be Caradrina frac/osa Grt. Hampson's figure is rather 

 misleading. It is wrongly placed in Proxenus as the front is tuberculate. 



