Article beginning on page 411.
Psyche 7:411-413, 1894.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/7/7-411.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

August 1896.1 PSYCHE. 411
The specimens from Speckled Mt., Me.
four in number, are all long-winged
and perhaps flew there in the adult
stage.
10. Orphula olivacea Morse.
Figs. 10, ioa.
Stenobothrus olivaceus. Morse,-
Psyche, '93, 477; '94, 104. Bcutcn-
miiller, 294.
This species I have described in full
elsewhere (Ioc. cit.) and there is very
little new to add here. The f , while
often presenting a greenish hue at
capture, dries to a dull brown. The
green form of 2 is about one-fourth to
one-third as numerous as the brown,
In New England it is known only
from Greenwich and Stamford, Conn.
Beutenmuller reports it from Sandy
Hook, N. J., and I have received it
from Prof. J. B. Smith, from Anglesea,
N. J., where it seems to be common.
One female from the latter place is
extremely large, measuring as follows :
hind fern. 14.5 ; leg. 22 ; total length 30 mm.
THE CONDITION OF APATELA.
BY A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, A.M., HILDBSHEIM, GERMANY It is a matter for regret that in 1867
we had no larger series of the American
species with us, when the late Mr. C. T. Robinson was my con~panion in a visit
to Guenhe at Chateaudun. I had ham-
amelis and a paler species, besides a
few others, and this paler species is
what I subsequently named clarescms
in American collections. Guenke had
his types in little glass boxes, and, after a long study, thought that the pale
species might be clarescens, hut it dif- fered from his type somewhat. Guen6e
said that some of his types were sent
back to the British Museum, and some
named specimens, but many of his
types he had with him. Of some of
these he furnished me drawings (which
I can no longer find) at a later period. There were no Apatelas among these.
One was Oligia exesa, which I recog-
nized in my collection and which, with
the other American species, we may
have to refer to Monocles, as they are
probably not congeneric with the type
of Oligia, the European 0. strigilis.
From what M. Guenee told me, it is
clear that positive certainty as to the
species of Apatela cannot be obtained
until the types are examined which are
now with M. Oberthur, These types
must be compared with the named ex-
amples or types in the British Museum,
and, above all, with Guenke's probably
sufficient, yet somewhat scanty descrip- tions in this genus. The decision as to
these species cannot rest alone 011 Mr.
Butler's comparisons of the named
examples in coll. Brit. Mus. From
these named examples Butler and Smith
refer clarescens as a synonym of A m -
melis, leaving my clarescens without a




================================================================================

412 PSYCHE. I ~ugust 1896.
name, or rather free for Harris' ĺ´pr^ni a name based on a lai'i'a which is said
to be that of my clarescens.
And against this latter course there
seems no possible objection, for Guende
was uncertain that my species was his,
and especially drew my attention to cer- tain features "which made the identifica- tion uncertain. But whatever Gucn6e's
type of clarescem was, it was not identi- cal with hamumelis. So good an ento-
mologist as Gnenfe could not have
redescribed his speciesfrom a specimen
absolutely the same with his type.
And yet this is what Prof. Smith would
have us believe. This is the result of
referring varieties as synonyms; for I
admit the possibility of clarescens being based on a pale, perhaps large hama-
melis. The same tiling is repeated in
IIeliophila (Leucania) . Here we are
asked to believe that Gnen6e's extincta, linita, and scir'picoia are, without any question, one species only. Now Apa-
tela and Heliophila have this in com-
mon, that certain species :ire separable on very indistinct characters, but, espe- cially in IIeliophila, the characters
sire constant and readily seized upon by a11 expert. Neither in Heliophila iiov
in Apatcla have I ever described a
species under two names, whereas
this has happened to me in genera
where the species are usually more
broadly disting~~ished and are perhaps
more prone to vary. But, in my case,
the mistake has usually happened owing
to my having been obliged to return
my type; consequently \ could not
compare the second specimen, which,
varying a little from my first type,
seemed to be a distinct species from the picture in my memory. To suppose
that Guede, with all the specimens
before him, could redescribe species of
Heliophila and Apatela seems difficult.
Guenbe is not Walker.
Clarescens Grt. is therefore p z m i
H .:
anis; but about clarescens Gn. there
hangs a doubt, which the fiiture mono-
rapher may solve. My memory of
Guenke's type is not strong' enough to
risk any further opinion, while my
deference to Guen6c, and my relative
unacquaintance with the species in
1867, led me to form no opinion of
my own upon the specimen.
The im-
pression I took with me was that
Guenhe was disposed to make the iden-
tification on the whole, so that I adopted the name.
Now as to hrmosa.
I did not have
this with me in 1867. After I bad
described verrillii. Mr. Morrison iden-
tified this species as brzimosa. 1
thought this idcutificatioti probable and adopted it. The species apparently
belongs to the subgenus Pharetra, and
I may here say that I have wrongl~
used Hie subgenus Apateki, the type of
which is of course aceris for tins group, in mj- papers in Papilio and the Cana-
dian entomologist upon our Dagger
Moths. The type of Pharetra Htibn.
Very.., is, therefore, au?./coma. Now,
Butler and Smith identify brumosa with
fersnasa. The latteris a Texan species,
and it seems to me doubtful that Guen6e
should have bad this species before him, since his material came mostly from the




================================================================================

August 1896 1 PSYCHE. 413
northern Atlantic district, although he
had Florida material from Doubleday,
and Georgia material probably origi-
nally from Norwich or even Abbot.
Persuasa must be compared with
Guen6e's description to clicck tins refer- ence. But extremely doubtful seems
to me Butler's identification of Zonga
with brumosa, and it is doubtful to its
author. Again we are asked to believe
that Gucn6e redescribecl his own species. Did Guentie write his three volumes
with one collection before him, or did
he merely edit descriptions made at
different times, returning his types in
the meanwhile so that the possibility of such mistakes becomes credible? My
belief is that the former is the fact,
hence these mistalvs become incredible
to me.' The impression I have is that
we ought to refer verriIZii to brumosa,
and Walker's two names as shown by
me in the Illustrated Essay as further
synonyms, restoring ĺ´persitas to its
author. But in my lists, I have felt
bound to follow Mr. Butler.
The synonymy given in the Cata-
logue of Prof. Smith of americana is
unintelligible to me, since hastidifera
A. & S. and acericoZa A. & S. are cited
also as distinct, while I have shown
that Guenee's hasfull /era is americana ! Different localities are given to the
three, whereas I know of but one
species, viz:, americana, which Har-
ris considered to be aceris A. & S.
(=: acericoh Guen.) . Guentie, who
did not know Harris' work, described
americana as Abbot's hashiifera and
proposed the name acericola instead of
Abbot's aceris, which he did not iden-
tify. Hence the synonymy (I leave
Walker out of the question) runs thus:
americana Harris = liasfullfei-a Guen.
nee A. & S., leaving Abbot's two spe-
cies unidentified. As Abbot's aceris
is certainly not the European species,
this must he called acericola Guen., if
identified as distinct from americana
and hastzilifera. Whether there is
really more thn one species is doubtful ; but, in any case, Abbot's two species
must be identified from Georgia laivae
(since the moths are badly drawn, or
rather too difficult to distinguish from plates made under the circu~~istynces) . Harris thought the larva of aceris
agreed with the larva of his americana,
hence his reference of Abbot's species
as identical with his own. Guenbe,
who had no larva (of americand},
thought that the figure of the moth of
hastultfera represented our northern
species already described as americma
by Harris, and made the identification.
As regards the two plates of Abbot,
Gucnke and Harris are at cross pur-
poses, but in any event have only one
species in nature before them, viz.,
ame-ricana. The references in Prof.
Smith's catalogue give the impression
a if three distinct species had been
identified and my speculation that the
larvae had perhaps been transposed by
Abbot, lo account for the opposite
identifications of Harris and Giienbe, is adopted. I repeat, until Abbot's species are made out beyond peradventurefrotn
Georgia material, all speculation is
futile.




================================================================================

From the foregoing I believe that the
status guo of Apatela remains virtually
unchanged since my paper in Pdpilio,
ii, 116, 1883. The list there given by
me of unidentified names can only be
safely changed to-day by the elimination. of two of Harris' posthumous names
based on larvae: Ulmi Harris, being
based on larvae belonging to morz~Za,
as Prof. Smith tells us, and is therefore a synonym ; while prmi Harris may
be used for the species called by me
clarescens, since the evidence is that
Guen6e1s clarescens is not mine,
although exactly what it is is not made
out unquestionably. As before, the
'' future monographer" whom we ale
all expecting (I wish I had the naming
of him) must busy himself with the
question ofwhat Guen6e really described
undei the names: spinigera, felum,
intewufta, and loizga, and he will do
well to reject interm$ta altogether, as
founded on a figure which, in this dif-
ficult genus, will hardly be admitted as a proper basis for a description and
name. It will shorten his labors by so
iniich. He will have also to decide
what Abbot intends by his plates of
aceris and hastulifera, and he will
have an easier task to make out Harris'
remaining name salicis. I shall be
glad if the other names in the cata-
logue, which are mainly based on my
identifications, receive his confirmation. But he must conscientiously compare
Gueu6c's text with the material, inas-
much as names derive Lheii authority
from literature, not from labelled speci- mens, 11owevc1 convenient these may
be as a substitute for the somewhat
arduous labor of making a specimen
" function " to a description.
Note.-Since finishing this article I have received a letter from Mr. Harrison G. Dyar, who kindly informs me that the larva figured in Harris' Correspondence under the name saiici's, belongb to ublimfa. If there is any difference between our northern species and obliniia as figured by Ahhot, we have a
name in salicz's for the northern form. Dr. Thaxter called my attention to material col- lected by him in Florida, but I WEIS not able to find any points of specific distinction as compared with northern oblipiita.
PREPARATORY STAGES OF COSMOSOMA ATIGE LINN. BY IIARRISON 0. DYAR. NEW YORK.
A full fed larva was found at Lake Worth, Florida, lute in December and eggs were
obtained from several female moths found flying over the flowers of some vines ot Mikania scandens growing in the swamp.
I am much indebted to Mr. F. Kinzel of Palm Beach, who has kindly sent me leaves of
the food plant every i'ew d~iys, and thus enabled me to raise the larvae ;ind observe their stages.
Eggs.
Rather low conoidal with flat base;
smooth, shining, translucent, waxy white, faintly tinged with yellow; 110 marks under a hand lens. Under EI half-inch objective the reticulations are linciu, rounded, hexagonal, in-egulat-, even four-sided, scarcely raised. Diameter 0.8 mm., height 0.6 mm. Usually aid singly on the joung leaves of the food plant. Duration of this stiigc eight days. Sfap 7. Head colorless, eyes black,




================================================================================