Oct., 1914 Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 77 



the subfamily CEnochrominse. Its type, the only species under it, 

 is a native of southwestern Russia. The species under considera- 

 tion (Dyar's List 3438) together with Hydriomena intcrmediata 

 Guen., salvata Pears, and perhaps others, having the short dent- 

 icles of the antenna; tipped with fascicles of cilise, must, if geni- 

 talic likeness is to be considered, form a distinct generic group. 

 Just what genus it may be I cannot now determine, possibly some 

 of the older European genera having designata, or an allied 

 species for its type, may be found to cover all of them; so my 

 use of the term Gypsochroa is merely tentative. Our species is 

 well known. In the Catskill ]\It. region it is double brooded, the 

 first imagos from overwintering pupae appearing from May 15 

 to June 10, and the second brood in July and early August. My 

 observations lead me to believe that the first brood feeds upon the 

 tender spring growth of the hemlock, and in the late summer 

 (Aug. 21, 1906) I took a single larva upon it, which was reared 

 to the imago. But the hemlock at this season becomes tough and 

 wiry, and evidently is not relished, for I found many larvse of 

 the second brood had taken kindly to my flower border of sweet 

 alyssum {A. maritimwn) . In this region killing frosts early in 

 September sweep ofif such tender vegetation but some of my 

 hardier plants survived, and larvse fed on them as late as October 

 10. I secured and reared some of these, and the following spring 

 twenty-one imagos were disclosed, of which eight were males. 

 Eleven more males, captured in various years, in the open wood- 

 land or at light, some in May, others in July, make a total of nine- 

 teen out of sixty-eight specimens before me — about one quarter 

 of the entire series. A study of these males disclosed the remark- 

 able fact that nine of them, or about one half, were furnished with 

 female antennae, and upon farther examination of the genitalia, 

 it was discovered that, as compared with the normal males, these 

 organs were a mass of minute parts in some cases, greatly dis- 

 torted but without trace of the female organism, so far as I could 

 perceive. Hence I conclude that such examples are true gynan- 

 dromorphs, and apparently are quite incapable of reproduction. 

 It is within reason to suppose that such aberrations may occur in 

 other species, and because of this many of our ablest systematic 

 workers have been led to regard antennal structure as not to be 



