54 



BULLETIN OF THE BROOKLYN ENT. SOC. 



farther separated from each other than they are from any of our 

 N. A. species. 



As I have already remarked, 1 consider deducta a true Syneda 

 (Leucanitis), and granting- this, 1 can see no reason for separating 

 this species from that next to it-pallescens G. and R. 



S. deducta is the connecting link between the two groups. 



The great differences in size of the species I propose to combine 

 in one genus cannot be of any objection, for in a closely allied 

 genus (Catocala) we have this in a still greater degree. Take 

 for instance Catocala amatrix Hubn. and C. minuta Edto. What 

 a difference in size is there ; but who would think of separating 

 these species generically ? ! 



I propose to have our species stand as follows: 



Leucanitis Gue. 

 (Syneda Gue. Bolina Dup.) 



Leucanitis graphica Hubn. 



divergens Behr. 

 " adumbrata " 



Howlandii Grote. 



ingeniculata Moor. 



hudsonica G. & R. 

 " socia Behr. 



ochracea 

 " Edwardsii 



" tejonica 



" nubicola 



" maculosa 



deducta Morr. ♦ 



var. incandescens Grote. 



jucunda Hubn. 



limbolaris Geyer. 



pallescens Gr. and R. 

 " nigrescens 



var. ochreipennis Harvey. 



fasciolaris Hubn. 



hadeniformis Behr. 



Atlantic States 



Colorado 



Arizona 



Texas 



Calfornia 



Texas 



Atlantic State g 

 Texas 



California 



The .species marked with a * I have not seen in natnre. 



EDW. L. GRAEF 



