102 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. vi. 
minal space. This is exactly opposite to what is usually found in ru¬ 
bi/era and rosaria , and by this and the wing form the species may be 
recognized, I think. 
The sexual characters of the male are quite different from those of 
the other allied species and are figured on plate VII, fig. 5. The de¬ 
rivation is evidently from the mbifera type, but is modified in both 
harpe and clasper at least as much as is indicated by the difference in 
wing form. 
The examples before me vary in the amount of contrast in the orna¬ 
mentation. In one specimen the space between the ordinary spots is 
black filled ; in another it is still a little darker than the ground color; 
the others are intermediate. The female has the outer half of the median 
space darker than the basal portion of the wing j but this is probably not 
a sexual characteristic. 
The dates given are in June and July and one specimen is marked 
bred from larva beaten from sallows at night. Mr. Dod writes that he 
bred two examples and that the species is not uncommon. 
Noctua rosaria Grt. 
This species I have from British Columbia, Washington and the 
Sierra Nevada, California. It is like rubifera in size and wing form but 
the ground appears more even, while yet the ordinary spots seem more 
mottled. The specimens have a somewhat more rusty shading, which 
yet gives the impression of a velvety surface. It is almost impossible to 
put the difference into words; yet it exists and is visible on comparison, 
while its importance is demonstrated by the genital characters which are 
shown at plate VII, figs. 6 and 7. The differences between the two' 
figures is that between a flat mount (fig. 6) and one in a cell (fig. 7); 
the latter showing the natural curves and position of parts. 
Hi 
• ■ I 
Noctua esurialis Grt. 
I have specimens from Corfield, Vancouver and from Portland, 
Oregon, which I take to be this species. The specimens from Vancouver 
agree perfectly with Mr. Grote’s description and with my notes on the 
type when I referred it as a probable geographic race of jucunda. The 
latter it is decidedly not, but I am not certain that it is not a form of 
rosaria. Compared with the latter it seems somewhat broader winged 
and dirtier ; darker and more sordid in color. Yet the differences are 
scarcely tangible and as my material is almost all from electric light 
globes it leaves something to be desired. 
The genital structure of the male indicates a good species, but leaves 
