160 



Macaria? indeclinata, and Azelina faedaria. Ou the same author- 

 ities Mr. Walker has re-described Macaria granitata, Guenee, as 

 Acidalia 9 Jissinotata, Macaria haUata, Macaria irregulat a, Macaria 

 retinotata, 3£acaria f refusaria, Tephrosia dispuncta and Larentia 9 

 exnotata ! 



A discussion of Dr. Packard's valuable notes on the Pyralidae does 

 not enter into the limits of the present Paper; but I cannot help 

 adding that analogous conclusions are reached with those here pre- 

 sented in the Geometridae. A prominent disclosure affecting Mr. 

 "Walker's descriptions in the Pyralidae was stated by us in the 

 following terms : 



The following descriptions of species referred to Hypena by Mr. 

 Walker, viz., H. generalis, H. rufinaUs, H. idaeusalis, H. cacuminalis, 

 H. habitalis, H. sohrialis, H. factissalis, H. caecaUs, are to be re- 

 jected from that genus and should be entirely ignored, since the 

 specimens upon which they are founded are so defective, that the 

 species are irrecognisable, and, instead of belonging to the Deltoid 

 or Noctuid genus to which they are referred, they belong to different 

 genera of Crambidae and Tineidae. 



The general correctness of this remark is verified by Professor 

 Packard's observations on these species. According to Prof. Pack- 

 ard, Hi/pena rufinalis " is a Crambus," II. idaeuscdis " is perhaps a 

 Tineid," H. cacuminnJis " is too much rubbed for description," H. 

 solrialis " is not a Hypena," while H. caecaUs is doubtfully retained 

 in this genus. 



On the other hand, H. factissalis is not mentioned by Professor 

 Packard, while H. generalis and H. habitalis are retained as refer- 

 ring to distinct species. II. lijugalis, Walker, is considered a 

 variety of H. Baltimoralis by Prof. Packard. We regard it as dis- 

 tinct and have described and figured it in the Transactions of the 

 American Entomological Society. 



