5 | 
Guen., and was originally created by a mere designation of the type (See 
Can. Ent. Vol. VII, Morrison’s letters and Grote’s reply. ) 
Conservula, Grt., was created in the same way, (Can. Ent. Vii: 
99) and is not entitled te recognition unless subsequently described: [I 
have been unable to find any description, and none of the gentlemen to 
whom I have applied for aid, could give me any information concerning 
it. Mr. Grote in a letter assures me that it is described but that he does 
not recollect where: he adds that it differs from its allies Brofolomia etc., 
by the even entire margin of primaries. 
The genus is based on Phlogophora anodonta, Guen., to which ge- 
nus also Guenee referred his species pertcu/osa, for which Mr. Grote re- 
surrected 7rzgonophora Hb. so that the species thereby became Z* perzcu- 
loso Grt.: the genus Conservula being indicated by Mr, Grote, Phlogo- 
phora anodonta Guen., became transformed into Conservula anodonta Grt. 
The genus is probably very lke Zrigonophora. 
Momophana, G77. This genus is based on Feralia C mstocki, Grt. 
Buff. Bull. Il, 59. Mr. Grote there indicates a new genus for this in- 
sect but does not describe it. In Stett. Ent. Zeit. Vol. 36, p. 195. he 
says of this genus: The insect so closely resembles Moma fallax that it 
can easily be mistaken for it. It differs generically by the pectinate an- 
tennze and short palpi, in which it agrees with Feraa. From this it is 
separated by the shorter vestiture, the more prominent, broader head, 
and the larger (naked) eyes. The thorax hasa posterior tuft. The 
form of wings agrees with that or Moma. The differences indicated be- 
tween Feraha Focosa Guen., and Comstocki in Buff. Bull. are the abs- 
ence of oce//i-the broader, more prominent head, the larger eyes, thinner 
and shorter vestiture, and the differences in ornamentation. 
In &. Jocosa | have demonstrated the oce/li, the head often differs 
in size in specimens of the same species, and the difference in that respect 
between the sexes is often very decided: comparative thickness of vesti- 
ture where it is of the same nature is not a good generic character while 
ornamentation is at most of specifje yalge. Add to this that Guenee con- 
sidered the type form of AZ. Comstocki as only a variety of his Jocosa, and 
the probabilities are that A/omophana is not a valid genus. 
Rhododispa, Gr? is unfortunately unknown to mein any way. Mr. 
Grote informs me it is described in Bull. Geol. Surv. of Terr, but I have 
been unable to find it, nor have the gentlemen in Whshington who have 
kindly aided me been able to find it in his papers in that publication, 
Prof. Schwartz adds that he fails to find the name in Marshall’s and 
Scudder’s appendices to Agassiz’s Vomenclator Zoologicus. 
