1% 
—36- 
margin of primaries; the distinguishing mark of Cirrhobolina I have been 
unable to find. Mr. Grote has properly placed the genus between Syze- 
da and Melipors, for it seems to fill what slight gap there might otherwise 
have been between the two. Syzedoida is a color genus only, and so Mr. 
Edwards seems himself now to believe. 
34, = Sudiaphora Zell, 
35. Adipsophanes Grt, does not seem to me sufficiently distinct from 
Crambodes. The somewhat longer abdomen, the want of a tuft on the 
basal segment and the slightly smaller secondaries are all that I can find 
to separate them. 
36. Spragueia Grt. Our species of Agriphila appear to agree in all 
respects with the European species, and I can find no reason for sepa- 
rating them generically. 
37. Appears to differ from Aconfia in not having the scutellum in- 
flated and overhanging the basal segment of abdomen; in other respects, 
and in ornamenation, the resemblence is exceedingly close. This entire 
group is very unsatisfactorily distinguished so far as structural characters 
go, but the genera can be very rea.lily distinguished by the ornamentation, 
which is peculiar in each genus. Zichofara-he Gni., differs from this ge- 
nus in having a prominent bulging clypeus. In ornamentation it is so 
close to Zarache as to be practically identical, and I do not consider it as a 
good genus. 
38. Guenee’s description ofthis genus is not entirely satisfactory: he 
figures two species, one of which has a very prominent tooth at the hind 
angle and at the middle of hind matgin of primaries while the other spe- 
cies has only a slight tooth at hind angle. I know neither. 
39, Cerma Hb., and Polygrammata Hb., do not seem to differ from 
Bryophila. Cermahas a larger tuft on the abdomen, and Polygrammuta 
lacks the thoracic tuft: otherwise they seem to agree very well. 
40, Eustrotia Ub. 
41. Very close to the preceeding, and possibly identical with it: the 
venation in this group however varies, and without a comparision in this. 
respect I would not dare to unite them. 
42. Very closely related to Poaphila from which it differs only in the 
vestiture, and shape of the primaries: neither of them very satisfactory dis- 
tinctions. The ornamentation of the only species considerably resem- 
bles that of Poaphila quadrifilaris. ieee 
43. In part only: see Note 56 fost. 
44. Not Oplexia, 
