April, '07] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. I29 



course, they are not. It probably represents a new species. 



In Plate I, figure 10, we figure the genitalia of Tibicen 

 noz-aboracensis Emmons, a distinct and well-marked species 

 and not a synonym of rimosa, as Uhler contends. It may, 

 however, prove to be the same as T. canadensis Prov., upon 

 further study. The specimen was taken in the Catskill Moun- 

 tains, July 6th, by Mr. R. F. Pearsall and kindly given us. 



Studies of Thecla irus Godart and T. henrici 

 Grotc and Robinson. 

 By Henry Skinner. 

 In this journal, page 45, Vol. 18, I stated my belief that 

 these two names represented one variable species. The state- 

 ment made there has brought me additional material and has led 

 me to again investigate the subject. Having been an ardent 

 collector in the field for many years, and also having accumu- 

 lated a large lot of material and also having determined many, 

 specimens for others, I have never been able to make out two 

 species, one for each of the above names. Henrici is described 

 in the Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, p. 174, Vol. I., 1867. The habitat 

 i> given as from "Atlantic District (Maine! to Pennsylvania!)" 

 a specimen from Maine is mentioned "which does not differ 

 from a number of specimens from the vicinity of Philadelphia, 

 except in that the secondaries show a very few white scales, 

 very narrowly arranged, edging the secondaries linearily along 

 external margin." They also say, "This species is intermediate 

 between Thecla augustus Kirby (T. augiistinus Westw.) 

 and Thecla irus, as illustrated by Boisduval and Leconte, and 

 is apparently associated geographically with the former." It 

 would, therefore, seem logical to think that henrici was be- 

 lieved to be a new species because it differed from the figure 

 of irus given by Boisduval and Leconte. I do not believe that 

 the authors knew any T. irus in nature. As Thecla irus, Bois- 

 duval and Leconte, Hist. Gen. des. Lep. et des Chen., pi. 31, 

 figs. 5 and 6, give a somewhat crude representation of a butter- 

 fly that has rather a wide distribution over the United States. 

 The figures show a somewhat larger butterflv than the henrici 



