24 



BARNES AND McDUNNOUGH: CATOCALA 



the eastern slopes of these mountains into Oregon, where we meet with the presumable race ccerulea which has also been 

 reported (Gibson, 1911, Rep. Ent. Soc. Ont. for 1910, p. Ill) from Penticton, British Columbia. Concerning its range 

 in the northern Rocky Mountain States we have no data, although there seems to be no reason why it should not occur 

 here. Beutenmiiller's manuscript records it from Montana and Wyoming. 



Catocala cleopatra Strecker 



Plate V, figs. 12 and 13; PI. XX, figs. 17 and 18 (claspers). 



Catocala cleopatra Strecker, 1874, Lep. Rhop. Het., p. 99. Hy. Edwards, 1875, Pacific Coast Lep., XIV, p. 2. 

 Catocala perdita Strecker, 1874, Lep. Rhop. Het., p. 100. Hy. Edwards, 1875, Pacific Coast Lep., XIV, p. 4. 



The species has been generally listed as a variety of californica but, as our conception of this latter species is different 

 from the usual one, we treat cleopatra as a good species until it can be bred and its relationships determined. We credit 

 the species to Strecker for reasons already stated under luciana; there is, however, no type of cleopatra in the Strecker 

 Collection nor did he mention it in his list of types. The specimen from the same locality which served Hy. Edwards 

 for his description and which presumably may be considered a metatype exists in the American Museum at New York 

 and a photograph of it lies before us. The type of perdita is in the Strecker Collection in Chicago and of this also we 

 have a photograph. From a comparison of these photographs and a personal knowledge of the specimens we cannot 

 see that perdita is anything but a slightly better marked form of cleopatra with rather more white shading before the 

 reniform; the worn nature of the perdita type gives it a rather different appearance, which has erroneously led to its 

 being referred as a variety of faustina. Cleopatra is well represented on plate V, figure 12 and perdita by figure 13; in 

 our opinion, the latter name is scarcely worth retaining; the primaries have a certain olivaceous mossy appearance which 

 is quite lacking in all species except francisca and show the same peculiar scale formation around the reniform as is found 

 in faustina. Holland's figure (PL xxxv, fig. 14) is certainly not cleopatra; it looks to us more like hermia than any thing- 

 else; his figure 13 on same plate (as stretchi) looks closer to true cleopatra but might be a briseis form; without a knowledge 

 of the actual specimen it is impossible to tell. Nothing is known of the early stages. 



The two forms of this species were described from specimens from Contra Costa County and San Mateo County, 

 California. We have a fine series before us from Alameda County and others from the vicinity of San Francisco. As 

 far as we know, the true species is confined to the territory around San Francisco Bay and other records must be regarded 

 with great doubt until more is known of the species. 



Catocala californica Edwards 



Plate V, fig. 1; PI. XIII, fig. 9 (larva); PL XV, fig. 14 (larval head); PI. XVI, fig. 19, and PL XVII, fig. 1 (segments); 



PL XX, figs. 13 and 14 (claspers). 



Catocala californica Edwards, 1864, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil., II, p. 509. Barnes and McDunnough, 1913, Psyche, XX, p. 200 (larva). 

 Catocala mariana Strecker {nee Rambur), 1874, Lep. Rhop. Het., p. 99. Hy. Edwards, 1875, Pacific Coast Lep., XIV, p. 3. 

 Catocala edwardsi Kusnezov, 1903, Rev. Russe Ent., Ill, p. 76. 

 Catocala eldoradensis Betjtenmuller, 1907, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXIII, p. 148. 



This species has probably caused more confusion in regard to its identity than any other species of North American 

 Catocala. Edwards' description from a specimen from Yreka, California, is very inadequate and might apply equally 

 well to half a dozen Californian forms. Strecker, who had an opportunity of examining the type specimen (at that time 

 in the Collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia), figured on plate xi, figure 13 of his Lep. Rhop. Het. 

 a specimen collected by T. L. Mead in Colorado under the name of californica; we have seen this specimen in his collec- 

 tion and it bears the following label " Catocala californica Edwards, Idaho Springs, Colorado: original of figure in Lep. 

 Rhop. Het. (one of original types)." Strecker's coloration of his figure is seen to be much too light when compared with 

 the original, which has quite dark primaries and is without doubt a specimen of hermia Hy. Edwards. Strecker's state- 

 ment on the label that this was one of the original types cannot, of course, be accepted in view of the wide divergence of 

 localities, unless we presuppose a wrong labelling of specimens for which there is apparently no ground. In view, how- 

 ever, of Strecker's excellent eye for species we believe we must expect the true californica to be so close to hermia as to 

 render Strecker's misidentification easily possible. 



