Lameere (1917), in a paper dealing with the evolution of mayflies recognizes the moult between subimago and imago as a mere delamination of the outer layer of cuticle resulting in a lighter more fragile imago. Needham (1935) agrees with this contention and states that the subimago “does not represent a growth period and is therefore not a true instar.” Further, “It is only a casting of the delaminated, hairy outer cuticle.” This is a recent view and at variance with the more conventional one that both the subimago and imago represent separate insttars.

In my Southern California List (Cal. Acad. Sci. 1901) a specimen of Agyrtes taken by myself at Pomona was deferred to longulus Lec., our only known species of the genus. Some years later a second example was taken at Pasadena, and more recently specimens from Washington and Vancouver have come to hand. These last agree with LeConte's type from near San Francisco, but the Southern California specimens show certain differences which seem to warrant their being set apart from longulus either as a subspecies or, as I prefer to call them, a distinct species for which I propose the above name.

Beaverlodge, July 19, 1931. I ♀ (Strickland.) This was described in 1878 as Panurgus maurus from specimens taken in Colorado. A related species is H. campanulae Ckll., from Washington State. In 1924 (Psyche XXXI, p. 243) I described H. crassipes from Oregon, supposed to be a member of this group. I no longer have access to a specimen, but I now think it is to be called Betheliella crassipes. The genus Betheliella was based (Entom. News, XXXV, 1924. p. 169) on B. calochorti Ckll., visiting Calochortus (Mariposa lily) in California.

Species of horse flies resembling Tabanus affinis Kby. and its allies with hairy eyes and red sides are among the abundant but taxonomically troublesome, North American Tabanidae, especially in the boreal regions. McDunnough (1921) did much to clarify the status of females of the most prevalent species, but omitted discussion of the scarcer males. Information on a few additional species and the availability of males of all species treated by him, make further discussion propitious at this time.

A careful study of the genotypes of a number of the Noctuid genera, at present employed for North American species, with particular reference to the male genitalia, has revealed the fact that in frequent instances the generic names have been misapplied. With a view to correcting certain of these errors (as listed in our 1917 Check List, following Hampson) the following notes are offered.