June, -1902.] Ottolengui : NoTES ON Calocampa. 77 



Syngrapha parilis jWv/. (PI. XUl, Fig. 15.) 



My specimens identified at British Museum. I am not sure 

 whether the type of parilis is there or not, though from their labeling 

 of my material I should think it is. The type of quadriplaga Walker, 

 is there, however, and is identical. 



In closing this paper I would add but a few words in regard to 

 separation of species. A great many are very closely allied, and 

 single specimens of two species might be supposed to be identical, the 

 differences being so slight. A study of good series, however, shows 

 that the differences, though slight, are constant, and therefore reliable. 

 The same is true of the genitalia, which must be noted very closely, 

 and I am told that this is also true of larvge, species feeding together, 

 and looking alike, yet emerging as distinct forms. 



One of the seemingly slight divergences which is absolutely reliable 

 in separating species I will mention. Especially in the rectangula 

 group, species may often be known by their secondaries, even when 

 the primaries are so worn as to make identification doubtful. Broadly 

 speaking there are two patterns : in one the base of the wing is a dirty 

 yellowish, the border being blackish. These we may call " bordered." 

 In the other, the base of the wing is tinged with a lighter shade of the 

 border color, thus producing an oblique band or bar of the yellowish 

 shade, crossing the wing centrally. These are the "banded." Of 

 the " bordered " forms rectangula is a good example, while vaccinii is 

 a conspicuous example of the " banded." 



NOTES ON CALOCAMPA WITH DESCRIPTION 

 OF A NEW SPECIES. 



By Rodrigues Ottolengui. 



(Plate X.) 

 Under this genus, Grote in his checklist, 1882, listed three species, 

 fiupera, cineritia, and citrvimacula. In Smith's list, 1891, only two 

 names are added to the above, bnicei and thoracica, the latter having 

 been described by Putman-Cramer as a variety of cineritia. I under- 

 took a closer scrutiny of the genus because of the fact that I appa- 

 rently had in my collection more forms than there were names in the 

 latest list, excepting bnicei, of which however I had access to the type. 

 I believed that two distinct forms were mixed under cineritia, as now 



