BARNES AND McDUNNOUGH: CATOCALA 



21 



Besides Beutenmiiller's figure of the larva on plate XI, figure 4, a figure which is rather more characteristic will be found 

 on plate XIII, figure 10, drawn from material collected around Decatur, Illinois. 



The species is distinctly a northern one. It is common through Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and the eastern 

 half of the United States with the exception of the Gulf States and the southern Atlantic ones. It has been reported from 

 Colorado and we have a few specimens from the vicinity of Provo, Utah, where it appears to be rare. 



Catocala luciana Strecker 



Plate VII, figs. 21-23; PL XX, figs. 3 and 4 (claspers). 



Catocala luciana Strecker, 1874, Lep. Rhop. Het., p. 99. Hy. Edwards, 1875, Pacific Coast Lep., 14, p. 5. Rowley, 1913, Ent. 



News, XXIV, p. 197 (larva). Barnes and McDtjnnottgh, 1918, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXVIII, p. 158. 

 Catocala nebraskce Dodge, 1875, Can. Ent., VII, p. 2. 

 Catocala nebraskce var. somnus Dodge, 1881, Can. Ent., XIII, p. 40. 



The excellent figures of this species should render it easily identifiable. The form with dark blackish primaries 

 (Fig. 23) has been named somnus by Dodge; it occurs along with the type form. 



The larva is very similar to that of briseis and verecunda; we have noted the main points of distinction in our article 

 on the life-history. Our breeding was, unfortunately, done too late to permit of a figure being included in these present 

 plates. 



The species is a native of the prairies, occurring in the states west of the Mississippi as far as the foot-hills of the 

 Rocky Mountains. It has been reported as rare in southern Manitoba (Gibson, 1910, Rep. Ent. Soc. Ont. for 1909, p. 118) 

 and is fairly common in the vicinity of Minneapolis, Minnesota, from which locality our breeding material came. We 

 have no records of its occurrence south of Kansas. 



The name luciana has generally been ascribed to Hy. Edwards but, unfortunately, the rules of nomenclature demand 

 that this species along with mariana, hippolyta, cleopatra, and perdita (all described in the same paper) be credited to 

 Strecker who drew up descriptions, using Hy. Edwards' manuscript names, and published them prior to the appearance of 

 Hy. Edwards' descriptions in No. 14 of his Pacific Coast Lepidoptera. This procedure is somewhat of an injustice to 

 Hy. Edwards and throws no very creditable light on Strecker's methods, but we imagine that "Time, the great healer," 

 whom Mr. Strecker was so fond of invoking, has already smoothed over any ill-feeling that might have arisen in this 

 connection. 



Catocala verecunda Hulst 



Plate VIII, figs. 1-5, 8, 9, and 11; PL XIII, fig. 11 (larva); PL XV, fig. 15 (larval head); PL XVI, 

 fig. 21, and PL XVII, fig. 7 (segments); PL XX, figs. 5 and 6 (claspers). 



Catocala verecunda Hulst, 1884, Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc, VII, p. 45. Barnes and McDtjnnottgh, 1913, Psyche, XX, p. 199 (larva, 



as faustina) . 

 Catocala diantha Betjtenmuller, 1907, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXIII, p. 937. Barnes and McDtjnnottgh, 1913, Psyche, XX, 



p. 200. 



Verecunda is very closely allied to luciana Hy. Edwards, and its form diantha (PL VIII, fig. 9) would correspond to the 

 dark form, somnus, of luciana. The best point of distinction between the two species, which occur together in eastern 

 Colorado, seems to be found in the color of the secondaries, which in luciana show a marked salmon tinge much as in 

 parta while in verecunda the color inclines toward pink, in some cases, especially in bred specimens, being bright carmine. 



Typical verecunda, of which figure 1 of plate VIII is the best representation, has the cross-lines showing very prominently 

 on a gray background; the female (Fig. 2) is rather more contrastingly marked; figures 3 and 4 are listed by Beutenmiiller 

 under this name and we presume are slight varietal forms of this species ; figure 5 was unnamed in the text but would 

 appear to us, as far as can be judged from a mere figure, to be best referred here. Diantha is well represented by figure 9; 

 Beutenmiiller has also listed figure 8 under this name, but the figure looks to us rather doubtful and might possibly refer 

 to a hermia form. Figure 11, listed as a variety of faustina, we imagine better placed under diantha; it is a peculiar suffused 

 form of rather mossy appearance, with distinct ruddy shades following the t. p. line; the original of the figure is before us 

 from Denver, Colorado, and we also have a single specimen from Provo, Utah. 



