15 BARNES AND McDUNNOUGH: CATOCALA 



but have seen none that are any paler in color than the specimen figured; the average male is several shades darker, gen- 

 erally with a much better defined black basal dash. Figure 11 represents an extremely dark female; the females are 

 always .more contrastingly marked than the males and possess a prominent black basal dash; there is more or less brown- 

 ish suffusion over the primaries, generally, however, less marked than in the figure. 



Grote, under the impression that Texan specimens collected by Belfrage approached more closely to neogama as 

 figured by Abbot and Smith than did the northern form (vide Check List, 1876, part 2, p. 41), proposed for this latter the 

 name communis. Abbot's figure is rather crude in coloration and we imagine that too great stress cannot be laid on the 

 exact color of secondaries. We have specimens from Vicksburg, Mississippi, a locality much closer to Abbot's type 

 locality than is the Texan locality, and these cannot be distinguished from the more northern form; we imagine, 

 therefore, that communis is correctly treated as a synonym of neogama. 



Regarding the Texan form mentioned by Grote, we have a good series from San Antonio, Tiger Hill, and Black Jack 

 Springs, Texas, before us and they certainly show the distinctive features mentioned by Grote. They would appear to 

 be intermediate between neogama and euphemia, being a more even gray in both sexes with reduced brown shading, espe- 

 cially in the female, and with very clean cut maculation; all the males before us possess the black basal streak and the 

 two sexes show much greater similarity in the markings of the primaries than is found in typical neogama. The secondaries 

 are paler orange with a rather broader postmedian band than is usual in the typical form. The male of this form might 

 easily be confused with subnata if it were not for the basal streak on primaries. As the form seems to represent a distinct 

 geographical race, we propose for it the name loretta, our types being 4 males and 3 females from the above mentioned 

 localities in the Barnes Collection. 



Figure 12 of plate VI is that of the type female of snowiana Grote. As stated by the author himself, it is an aberration 

 but the name was later extended (Papilio II, p. 8) to apply to a presumable race from Kansas which showed darker pri- 

 maries and broader black bands on secondaries. We do not know how constant these points of distinction may be as 

 we have no material from Kansas before us; several bred specimens, however, from Vinton, Iowa, in the collection seem 

 to carry out this idea fairly well, so that the name may be used for a trans-Mississippi racial form. The adult larva, 

 .which was quite recognizably figured by Abbot has been described several times; the full life-history is still a desidera- 

 tum as our own breeding experiments failed to carry the larva beyond the fourth stage. In its rather rough, rugged 

 appearance the larva bears a certain similarity to that of ilia. 



The species is quite common and wide-spread, extending throughout the eastern half of the United States and north- 

 ward into Ontario and Quebec. 



Catocala euphemia Beutenmuller 

 Plate VIII, fig. 26; PL XIX, figs. 15 and 16 (claspers). 

 Catocala euphemia Beutenmuller, 1907, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXIII, p. 938. 



Euphemia may be merely a southwestern race of neogama but, as there is some slight difference shown in the male 

 claspers, we treat it as a species until the larval history is known. The even dark gray color of the primaries separates 

 it from typical neogama. 



The types of this species were four males from the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona, and from Texas. It would be well 

 to limit the name to the Arizona type, as it is possible that the Texan specimens belong to our new form, loretta. 



SECTION II 



Catocala Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica, II, 2, p. 158 (type, C.fraxini LinnaBus). 

 Lamprosia Hubner, 1820, Samml. Exot. Schmett., II (type, amatrix Hiibner). 

 Astiotes Hubner, 1825, Verzeichniss, p. 277 (type, dilecta Borkh.). 

 Andrewsia Grote, 1882, New Check List, p. 41 (type, messalina Guenee). 



Fore tibise unspined; tarsi without the extra row of spines. 



As we have already mentioned, there are two exceptions to the latter clause: both aholihah and illecta show a fourth 

 row of tarsal spines; the former is decidedly aberrant in other respects, and probably, with two European species, forms 



