(E.) 



[From the Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 31 Jahrgang, No. 10-12, 1870.] 



ON CUCULLIA mTEUMEDIA Nov. Spec. AND C. LUCI- 



FUGA w.-y. 



By a. SPEYER, M. D. 



Of the group of Cucullia, of which G. umhratica Linn. [Plate 8, 

 fig. 4] is the most common European representative, Guenee in his 

 well-known writings, mentions only one American species, viz., um- 

 hratica, which he represents (Noctuelites II, p. 147) as " commune 

 dans toute I'Europe et lAmerique Septentrionale." Walker also 

 knows of but one American species of this group, not ximbratica, but 

 chamomillce W.-Y., represented in the Britisli Museum by one speci- 

 men from Hudson's Bay and one specimen from the State of New 

 York {List of Spec, of Lepidojp. Ins. in the Collec. of the Br. Mus., 

 XI, p. 650). Through the kindness of my friend Mr. Meske, of Albany, 

 N. Y., I have received specimens of the species which, according to 

 his authority, is generally known in America as umhratica [Plate 8, 

 fig, 5], and this species is neither timhratica nor chamomillce ,hiit is so 

 nearly allied to C lucifuga W.-Y., that I was at first disposed to take 

 it for a local variety of the last-named species. The receipt of a greater 

 number of specimens from America, accompanied with a drawing and 

 description of the larva, enable me to place the identity of the species 

 beyond all doubt. I have named it intei'media, it being between luci- 

 fuga and lactuccB W.-Y., having the coloring of the first-named 

 species with the form and markings of the latter, but, in fact, allied 

 more closely to lucifuga. 



The question now arises, is intermedia, which was formerly known 

 in America as umhratica, also the identical G. umhratica of Guenee ? 

 Guenee was too well acquainted with the difierences between um- 

 hratica and lucifuga and their allied species to confound intermedia 

 with the so dissimilar umhratica, if he really had intermedia before 

 him. He does not, however, expressly say that his statement as to the 

 occurrence of the species is founded on his own examination, for " com- 

 mune " umhratica certainly is not, otherwise it would not have escaped 

 my entomological friends in America. I am led to believe that 

 Guenee's statement is only a reproduction of the error made by 

 American collectors ; he, however, cites no American authority. Nei- 

 [Assem. Ko. 133.] 28 



