60 REVISION OF THE DICOPINA—SMITH. 
from the dark form in which the maculation is barely traceable to the | 
bright bluish gray specimens in which every detail is evident, and the © 
markings are additionally emphasized by rusty red brown scales. The 
Illinois specimen (Ace. 20395) came from the State Laboratory of Nat- 
ural History at Champaign, and was named Dicopis electilis for them. 
Eutolype depilis Grt. 
1881, Grt., Papilio 1, 48, Dicopis. 
‘9 Smooth, dark gray in color, recalling Hutolype Rolandi, but without the metallic 
tuft of scales on the thorax behind which separates Hutolype from Dicopis. Interior 
line fine, black, projected opposite the claviform spot. Claviform with a tinge of 
yellowish, moderate, somewhat rounded and incompletely ringed with black. Or- 
bicular, spherical, concolorous gray, with a paler ring edging the faint annulus within, 
Reniform similar, very large, medially constricted. Outer line fine, irregular, waved, 
much removed outwardly. There is a flecking of yellowish outside of the fine sub- 
terminal line, which runs very close to the outer median line, at inner angle. Hind 
wings whitish, with gray shaded edging and fringes; beneath, with dot and line. 
Head and thorax dark gray. Size of Muralis, or perhaps a little larger and seem- 
ingly stouter. Columbus, Ohio. 
“cs * * Finally, I have a female specimen from Texas, collected by Belfrage, 
which comes near to Depilis, but may prove a distinct species; it is numbered 697.” 
The above is Mr. Grote’s original characterization. Two female spec- 
imens are before me, agreeing with the description save for a somewhat . 
paler ground color, very indistinet markings and slightly darker shade © 
between the ordinary spots. Both are from Texas, collected by Bel- 
frage, dated March 21; one of them was given me by Mr. Grote him- | 
self, is labeled Dicopis depilis in his own handwriting, and is probably tl 
the specimen referred to in his description. The other is from the Bel- 
frage material in the Riley collection, and is numbered 697 on a red 
label. The label would indicate that Mr. Grote concluded that the 
Texan specimens were not distinct from the Ohio type, and I have no 
doubt he is correct. I have also seen the species from New York State. 
Eutolype rolandi Grt. 
1374. Grt., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., XXv1, 198, Eutolype. 
vernalis Morr. 
1874. Morr. Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., xvii, 133, Copipanolis. 
1875. Grt., Can. Ent., Vil; 17, pr. syn. 
1875. Grt., Bull. Buff. Soc. N. Sci., u, 210, pr. syn. 
Dark ash gray, sometimes almost blackish. Head and thorax usually a little 
darker, patagiz indistinctly blackish margined, dise with a posterior tufting of me- 
tallic bronze brown scales, which lose their luster in old specimens. Primaries with 
the maculation vague, indefinite, the median lines barely traceable, sometimes en- 
tirely obsolete. T.a. line geminate, rather evenly oblique outwardly. TT. p. line 
apparently single, its course much as in muraiis as far as traceable. A faint nearly 
upright median shade is pcrceivable in some specimens. §. t. line always marked as 
a series of blackish dots, sometimes becoming nearly connected, and often relieved by 
a Sparse powdering of greenish white scales, The claviform is not traceable in any 
ofmy specimens. Orbicular moderate, round, concolorous, imperfectly black ringed, 
usually marked by an annulus of pale yellowish scales, rarely almost obsolete. Re- 
