162 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



])orc numl)ers, probabh- indicating thai they or their dupHcates 

 had been submitted to an expert, and it may be possible in some 

 cases to make guesses at associating these specimens with simihir 

 numbers amongst the numerous notes and correspondence per- 

 taining to the collection, but which we did not then have time to 

 look through. I cannot recall that we found one single instance 

 in which a Cartwright label was attached to a specimen. But, as 

 I believe Heath to ha\e collected at Cartwright exclusively for 

 about 35 years, we decided that it would be reasonable to assume 

 any specimen to be of Cartwright origin unless any other localit\- 

 or collector's name was pinned below it, as, for instance, 1 found 

 was always the case with specimens which I had sent him m\self. 

 Healii, though a most energetic collector and ardciii Ion er of 

 nature, had, imfortunately, a poorh- developed facult>' for recog- 

 nising a species. I had long previously discovered this from corre- 

 spondence and exchange of specimens with him, though, as a 

 matter of fact, he cared little for specimens not from Cartwright, 

 and so rarely accepted in exchange. During Smith's lifetime. 

 Heath had relied almost cxclusi\el>' upon him for names in the 

 Xoctuidie, and very rarely, either openly or privately, disputed 

 a name that was given him. Now, Smith's determinations for 

 corresponding collectors were \'er>- frequently, to say the least 

 of ii, hast\', and \er\- often, alas, oulpably careless. In my own 

 experience, in m\ earlier collecting days in the west, I not in- 

 frequenth" found that if I sent Smith specimens of a species — 

 it might be of a well known and not very variable species either — - 

 twice or three times, he would apply a different and \ery distinct 

 name to it each time. Heath e\identl\' met with this trouble, 

 and got over the dirticult\' b\' dividing a species, not always very 

 variable, into two or three. We frequently found a series of good 

 or tolerably good specimens standing as one species, and a series 

 of bad specimens of the same as distinct. And perhaps a series 

 of smaller specimens of the same thing as something else, such 

 as "probably new J.B.S." Nor was that all. Besides the frequency 

 with which one species stood for two or more, it was deplorable 

 the number of very distinct and often dissimilar species which 

 were arranged in one series under the same name. In short, the 

 errors and mixtures were appalling. 



