I'late 40. "Sphinx Hiont.-s, i\<r. 1." 



'JMiis is a co])y of Di-ury, Vol. 2, J'l. 2U, f\'^. ,'5. I liavc shown, 

 Proc. Eiit. S(»c. IMiil., \'(>l. ."), |). (ilt, that llie Hpecies i.s i»roljalily Wc'st 

 fiHliaii. 



id. " CJc'oinelni argeiitala, lig. 2." 



This is a copy of Drury, Vol. 2, I'l. II, lig. 4. There is no allu- 

 sion to the figure in Emmons' text. Drury states that he lias re- 

 ceived the species from New England. There is no doubt that Drury 

 represents the species since described as Urola chamaechry sella by 

 Walker, and that this, following the laws of lu'iority, .should be 

 known in future as Argyria argentata. 



id. " Glaucopis pholus, fig. 3." 



This, although representing so common an insect, seems to be a 

 copy of Drury, Vol. 2, PI. 28, fig. 3. 



id. " Smerinthus astylus, fig. 4," "Dryocampa virginiensis, fig. 5," 

 " Geometra serrata, fig. 6," are all copies from Drury. Figure 7, 

 "Dryocampa imperialis" is also a copy of Drury's Plate 9, fig. 1, 

 which is a coarse figure of our species much better represented by 

 Abbot. 



Plate 41. " Phalaena dionc, fig. 1, 4, G, 8." 



These are copies from Abbot of Ardia arv/e, previously illustrated 

 by Drury, 1, PI. 18, fig. 3 (not "2" as cited by Dr. Packard, Proc. 

 Ent. Soc. Phil., 1864, p. 118). 



id. " Spilosoma arge, fig. 3." 



This represents the same species as the preceding, but is a copy of 

 Drury's figure above cited. 



id. " Spilosoma acraea, fig. 2 (male) and fig. 5 (female)." 

 These are copies of Drury, Plate 3, figs. 3 and 2. 



id. " Spilosoma cunea, fig. 7." 



This is a copy of Drury, 1, Plate 18, fig. 4. 



id. "Spilosoma egle, fig. 11." 



This is a copy from Drury, 2, Plate 20, fig. 3. 



id. "Bupalus catenarius, fig. 10." 



This is a copy of Drury, 1, Plate 8, fig. 3. 



id. "Spilosoma nais, fig. 9." 



This is a copy of Drury, 1, Plate 7, fig. 3. 



