24 BULLETIN BROOKLYN ENTOM. SOC. VOL. VIL. June 1884. ] 
generica!ly distinct. Notwithstanding the suggestion of so eminent an 
authority as Dr. Speyer, that AZessalina, (Belfragiana) is generically dist- 
inct from Ca/ocala, and notwithstanding on this suggestion, Mr. Grote 
created the genus Andrewsza for it, I fail to see any good reason why it 
should be separated even subgenerically. The only basis of separation 
so far known is the shape of the fore wings; but the difference is so 
slight, that I am confident no one could tell the denuded fore 
wing of the male, from that of any Cafoala of like size. It may be, 
when the larva is discovered, that it may be so aberrent as to warrant 
generic separation but not until then. If the larva agrees with the general 
form of the larvae of the Ca/ocale, the insect can be nothing but a true 
Catocala. 
With regard to Elonympha there is not the slightest ground for a se 
parate generic reference. Guenee gives as his reasons for retaining Hub- 
ner’s division ‘‘the color of the wings beneath, the palpi, and the fact 
that the larva is not furnished with lateral fringes.” Of the palpi, in 
another place, he says, “palpi very ascending, arched, a little heavy, the 
second joint narrow, smoothly squammose, the third long, linear, sharp”. 
The first point might serve for specific reference, never for generic: the 
second, concerning the palpi, has no standing whatever; after denuding 
and examining hundreds of palpi of different species, and making draw- 
ings of many with the camera, I am prepared to say the palpi do not 
* differ from those of other Ca/oca/e, and in the points indicated are not 
more marked than some others (amuca, crataegt, praeclara etc.). With 
regard to the third point, the larval fringes, this is likely true of others of 
the smaller species, and even if true of this alone, would have no generic 
or subgeneric value. A/ofria has no excuse for remaining as a genus. 
With regard to Wudilis, there is, I freely admit, valid ground for a 
difference of opinion. The coloration of the hind wings, at once is a 
mark, but coloration has not necessarily even specific value. The wings 
are slightly more pointed, but in no other case 1s this thought to be of 
generic or subgeneric value. ‘The body of the female is strongly 
keeled, but this is a character in less degree of other. Ca/oca/e, The insect 
hibernates in the pupal state, and often goes beneath the ground: to pu- 
pate, but in no other genus, is this thought worthy a moments notice, as 
a basis for even subgeneric separation. These all afford no ground for 
any separation; but there is a marked difference in the genitalia of the 
male, unknown heretofore however, which may be by some thought a 
valid basis for generic reference. But structural differences which are 
