18 



13- Tricholita inconspicua Grt. (syn. Mamestra pf.ctinicornis Sm.) 

 Redington, Ariz. 3 • 

 We think there is no doubt about the correctness of the synonymy. 

 We have a specimen compared with Crete's type in the Neumoegen collection 

 by Dr. Barnes which agrees e.xactly with Smith's description. The specimen 

 here figured has a rather more distinct subterminal line than usual and the black 

 trigonate spots before same are rather suffused to form a shade; otherwise 

 identical. Hampson's figure (PI. LXXX'V, fig. ii) as well as his description 

 (Cat. Lep. Het., V, 261), based on a specimen in U. S. Xat. Mus., are erroneous, 

 and apply more closely to a faded form of Smith's new species Tricholita 

 endiva than to anything else we know of. 



14. Xylomiges tantiva Sm. Redington, .'\riz. $. 



Agrees with 3 co-types in our possession ; the distinctness of the macu- 

 lalion, especially of the claviform, is variable. 



15. EuxQA scANDENS Riley. Cartwright, Man. $. 



16. AcRONVCTA iNCLARA Sm. Cartwright, Man. 9 • 



17. AcRONYCTA INCLARA Sm. Cartwright, Man. $ . 



We think there is not much doubt that this is the species referred to 

 by Smith in his Revision under the name hamamelis On. and afterwards named 

 by him iiiclara. In his paper in Ent. News, XXII, p. 315, he lays great stress 

 on the "triangular dusky shade" pointing inwards from outer margin; this is 

 distinctly visible in our $ , less so in the $ , which further shows a distinct 

 black streak or dagger-mark at anal angle, a feature which Smith in his re- 

 vision declares to be never present in inclara. We can see nothing in the two 

 specimens before us which would lead us to conclude that they represented any- 

 thing but the $ and S of one species ; the course of the ordinary lines, the 

 type of scaling, and the general coloration are all practically identical. Grote's 

 description and figure of ovala (Bull. Buff. Soc. I, 80, PI. II, fig. 14) apply so 

 closely to the specimens before us, even to the showing of the triangular shade 

 on left side of figure, that we would hesitate greatly in separating the two 

 forms. Careful breeding, however, will be necessary before a definite state- 

 ment can be made. 



18. Amphipyra (Pyrophila) GLABELLA Morr. Redington, Ariz. 9- 

 ig. PsEunAcoNTiA LOUISA Sm. South. Pines, N. C. 9 ■ 



Agrees well with original description. 



20. FoTA ARMATA Grt. Redington, .Ariz. 9 . 



A form with considerable pale sufTusion on primaries; the typical form 

 is unicolorous dark. ' 



21. Meliana (Hf.liophila) stolata Sm. Palmerlee, Ariz. 3- 

 Agrees well with figure and description. 



22. Annaphila mviNULA Grt. Redington, Ariz. 9. 



The difference in color between black border and iimer orange portion 

 of secondaries does not show in the photograph. 



