58 Journal New York Entomological Society. [VoL x. 



After admitting my ignorance of structural differentiation it would 

 not be right for me to alter the classification of species as placed by 

 Dr. Dyar. I have however removed one species, and will comment 

 upon the placing of two others. Oniafa was described by myself 

 from a single specimen in the National Museum collection. It had 

 been papered and probably thereby injured and much flattened. The 

 head parts were in fair condition ; at any rate the absence of any 

 tubercle in front, and the length of the palpi separated it from Basi- 

 lodes which it superficially resembled because of its metallic coloration. 

 But it did not seem justifiable to erect a new genus upon so poor a 

 specimen, and it was tentatively placed with Deva when described. 

 Dr. Dyar in his manuscript list before me places it with veniista, con- 

 texta and piitiiaDii under Eiiclialcia, and, replying to my protest, says 

 he cannot separate it structurally. To my mind these three make 

 quite a distinct group, placed with which oniata would be such a 

 foreigner as to make it unbelievable. Considering the condition of 

 the type therefore, I deem it best to await the discovery of good 

 specimens before finally classifying. It is already placed in a genus 

 where it does not belong, but it is better there than removed to 

 another equally doubtful. Consequently I list it with Pauchrysia 

 which replaces Deva. 



Under Phisia Dr. Dyar lists nietallica, at which I am surprised. 

 While we have but three true Plusias in this country taking chrysitis as 

 the type, the fauna of the world includes many, in which the metallic 

 discal sign is absent. It seems odd therefore that inctallica with its 

 very conspicuous metallic sign should fall into this companionship. 



In regard to Syngraplia, I should have expected to find all the species 

 having yellow hind wings under this one genus as apparently was in- 

 tended by Hiibner. Structurally, however. Dr. Dyar says they separate, 

 and I list them accordingly, with considerable surprise that parilis 

 should fall here. These comments are not at all meant as adverse 

 criticism of Dr. Dyar's classification ; the points mentioned simply 

 appear to me of sufficient importance to be noted. 



My first special interest in Phisia began from the fact that I found 

 myself in possession of more forms than I could find in any one col- 

 lection, and furthermore because, in going from one collection to an- 

 other, to obtain names for my material, I discovered a sad con- 

 fusion in identification. For &yiz.v(\^\t pseudogamma was nearly every- 

 where labeled ino/iodoii, which may account for the fact that Professor 



