284 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
I have tried to distinguish C. communis, Grote, from C. neo- 
gama, Abb., even as a variety, but can discover no points of any 
importance; C. snowiana, on the other hand, is far more like 
C. piatrix, though much darker. Knowing what I do of the - 
variability of European and Japanese forms, it would not 
surprise me to find that C. subnata and piatrix were both 
varieties of C. neogama. American students, however, should 
be the best judges of their own species. But for the admitted 
identity of C. snowiana (the most distinct form of the lot), I 
should not presume to suggest the possible specific identity of 
such a well-marked form as C. piatrix with C. neogama; at the 
same time, apart from the general tint of the primaries, it 
differs less from C. neogama than C. phalanga does from 
C. paleogama or C. scintillans from C.innubens. In the Zeller 
collection were two specimens labelled as C. neogama, one of 
which is certainly C. piatriz, as shown by the colouring of the 
primaries and the continued black angular band on secondaries. 
Grote gives C. zoe and C. uxor as varieties of C.ilia, and perhaps 
he is right in so doing; but C. albomacula, Kdw., is much nearer 
to typical C. tlia than C. zoe, for it only differs in having the 
reniform spot wholly white. In this instance I unhesitatingly 
declare it to be a variety. I don’t feel so sure about C. zoe; it 
differs in pattern. 
Grote rightly sank C. walshii as C. junctura, but his C. arizone 
is nothing else ; the markings are identical. C.semirelicta, Grote, 
is, in my opinion, nothing but a badly faded example of the white- 
spotted form of C. unijuga; if the red of the secondaries were 
restored and the primaries darkened there would be nothing to 
distinguish it by; the form of the black band across the secondaries 
has a different appearance at first sight, owing to the drooping of 
these wings, but, as a matter of fact, it differs less in outline than 
some of our other examples of C. uniuga. 
Apart from the unquestionably variable character of the black 
band across the secondaries, I see no reason why C. pura, mesket, 
and beaniana should not be all one species (I am satisfied that 
the two last are one); and it would not take much to persuade 
me that C. hermia was no more than a well-marked variety. The 
last mentioned is, in any case, nearly allied to C. adultera, 
Ménétr. (a transitional form to C. unijuga). From Lord 
Walsingham’s Californian collection we obtained an example of 
C. hermia, the primaries of which are like C. meskei, male, or 
(if anything) a little less defined in marking. In some copies of 
Ménétries’ Catalogue, C’. adultera is uncoloured. 
I have no doubt that C. grotiana is a form of C. briseis ; but 
whether it is locally constant, or is merely a variety in which 
the white band across the dise is a little better marked, I am 
unable to say; it differs no more than other admitted varieties 
of species in the genus. I should not be surprised to hear that 
both had been proved by breeding to be forms of C. mariana. 
