320 Mr. A. G. Butler on the 



Melipotis famelica. 



Bolina famelica, Guen^e, Noct. iii. p. 62. n. 1396 (1852). 

 Bolma^bivittata, Walker, Lep. Het. xiii. p. 1156, n. 23 (1857). 



St. Domingo, St. Vincent, Jamaica, Honduras, Venezuela. 

 In B. M 



Melipotis imparallela. 



Bolina imparallela, Guenee, Noct. iii. p. 65. n. 1402 (1852). 

 Var. ? Melipotis nigrohasis, Guenee, I. c. u. 1403 (1852). 



Colombia, Mexico. 



The description of the primaries in this species seems to 

 indicate aflSnity to M. cellaris, but the secondaries seem to 

 bring it nearer to M. famelica, Mr, Druce's figure (Biol. 

 Centr.-Am. tab. xxxi. fig. 13), from the type forwarded by 

 M. Oberthiir, does not correspond with the description by 

 M. Guenee, but agrees pretty closely with the male of 

 M. fasciolarts, var. cunearis, Guen. According to that author 

 his type is 41 millim. in expanse (3 more than in the figure), 

 " the upper wings are of a dark grey-brown, slightly viola- 

 ceous, with the basal area clearer, flesh- tinted, cut obliquely 

 and traversed by several fine, indistinct, parallel, approxi- 

 mated grey lines. A straight central band, oblique in the 

 opposite direction, of the same colour as the base, and divided 

 also by three fine reddish threads, against the last of which 

 the extracellular patch is attached, oval, oblong, or often 

 reniform and broader tlian the band, of a clear yellowish-flesh 

 tint. Between the two bands the area is varied with black, 

 and beyond the latter the black forms little spines." So far 

 the description differs in almost every particular from the 

 species figured as Guenee's type, and therefore I can only 

 suppose that, since the publication of the third volume of the 

 ' Noctu^lites,' the type-label has been accidentally transferred 

 to the wrong species. Until I had made up my mind 

 respecting the synonymy of the species in this genus, I 

 refrained from looking to see what Mr. Druce had done with 

 regard to it ; therefore I am agreeably surprised to find that 

 where he has put species together he has, in almost every 

 instance, come to the same conclusion as I have. He has, it 

 is true, not gone so far as I have done, and in the case 

 of M. famelica he has adopted Walker's identification (which 

 is certainly incorrect, as the description shows) ; but in the 

 main we are agreed. 



