136 rROCEEIUNGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



posterior line geminate, both lines fairly evident, though the inner is 

 Honietinics obscure, the intervening- space wliitish. The onter line is 

 black or brown, sometimes a little lunulated, as a whole outwardly 

 bent over the cell and well drawn in below. The space beyond the 

 transverse posterior line is dusky, and through it is a more or less 

 evident i)ale subterminal line which is very irregular in some speci- 

 mens and strongly /igzag, though in others it is almost even. There 

 is a scries of blackish terminal lunulcs, usually prec<'ded by a waved 

 ]);iler line, and tlu', Iriiiges beyond them <iro cut with dusky. There is 

 a black streak at base, which is a little curved and meets the trans- 

 vers(^ anterior line in su(!h a way as to include an oval space at the 

 base. Tiiere is a distinct dagger mark crossing the transverse poste- 

 rior line in thesubmedian interspace, and extending to tlie subterminal 

 line only. Between veins ^t and <) a black mark extends inwardly and 

 sometimes reaches the transverse posterior line; but it tends to become 

 obsolete and in some specimens is hardly even indicated. The ordinary 

 spots are large, the orbicular irregularly ovate, black ringed, usually a 

 little paler than the ground color. The reniform is large, kidney 

 shaped, usually not well deliiie*!, but made ])rominent by the yellowish 

 lining. Secondaries smoky in both sexes, in the females a little darker, 

 with all outer line and a discal spot fairly evident in most cases. 

 Beneath smoky, ])owdery, both sexes with an outer lino and usually 

 also with a discal spctt. 



bjxpanse, l.L'O to !.()() inches (30 to 40 mm.). 



Jhihihd. — New York to Texas, west to the foot of Eocky Mountains; 

 central New York in .luiie; Washington, District of Columbia, in May; 

 Newton, Massachusetts, May 25; St. Paul, Minnesota, June 29: Texas 

 in .Inly. 



1 have no doubt that this is a good si)ecies. It has been asserted by 

 those who have ))ivd the- insect that it is the same as hamamelis; but I 

 believe that this is due to an error in the observations on the larvae. 

 Certainly there is never any difficulty in separating the adults from 

 those oi' iKontoiK'li.s, and unfil both si)ecies have been raised from eggs 

 laid by a female of one species 1 am not ready to admit that the two 

 are the same. The most characteristic features which distinguish this 

 si)ecies are the jiale ground color through which there is a more or less 

 evident yi^llowish shade; the transverse anterior line, which is more or 

 less black idled and distinctly drawn in to meet the basal black streak 

 so as to Ibrm an oval sjiot in the upper jjar-t of the basal space, exactly 

 like that in aUmruJ'd. There is very little variation in the species, 

 ex(;ept that some are a little darker than others and in some the yellow 

 is more evident than it is in others. I have examined over lilty speci- 

 mens in comparison with the other species in this series and have not 

 found any examples that were in the least doubtful. In wing form this 

 si)ecies also approaches alharnfa and is different from hamamelis. The 

 head is distinct, front a little bulging, the palpi reaching to the middle. 



