48 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



be clear to the unprejudiced reader that I have made very few mistakes 

 in a very difficult group, and that I have at least laid down the founda- 

 tions for its proper study. With regard to Dr. Harvey's " types," the 

 specimens belonged to me, and v/ere described under my personal 

 supervision, correction and direction, and Prof Smith, in complimenting 

 Dr. Harvey's accuracy, is unwittingly betrayed into complimenting me. 



In conclusion I may make some remarks on species of mine " not 

 placed " by Prof Smith. I am surprised that A. Fishii Grt. is not placed, 

 although in the list it is marked by a star. This is a very pretty and 

 distinct Eastern species from the sharp contour of the wings and the 

 peculiarities of the ornamentation of colour. A. juncta is a dark species, 

 , recalling in colour the commoner blackish-brown Agrotids, but with the 

 stigmata fused, recalling the Hollemani group. I do not doubt its 

 validity, nor that of nanalis, the smallest form known to me and 

 resembling opaca in appearance. Mamestra insulsa Walk, is, I say, on 

 p. 43 of my essay, an Agrotis, evidently allied to Repentis. What does 

 Prof Smith mean by saying (p. 209) : " Mr. Grote, whose reference of 

 the species to Agrotis has been followed, gives no suggestion as to the 

 species it most resembles or where its allies are to be found"? Again, 

 Prof Smith calls my Hei-ilis, " herelis " ; badinodis, " badinodes " ; 

 insulsa. " insula " ; in all these cases I do not know why. 



Finally, with regard to two species rejected from Agrotis by Prof 

 Smith, I would say that I could not determine the structure of the feet in 

 the type of niveiveiiosa (coll. Hy. Edwards). In my New Check List I 

 draw attention to its resemblance to Cladocera. I do not believe it is a 

 ffadena, as Prof Smith classes it. I can well believe that A/askce 

 belongs to my genus Agroiipkila, which in my New Check List I place 

 in the Heliothini. I am pleased that my recently expressed opinion that 

 A. hospitalis Grt. is a valid species, distinct ixova perconflua^ is confirmed 

 by Prof Smith. 



On page 92 the author remarks: "Mr. Butler says augur is the 

 type of Graphiphora Ochs., in which case the application of the name to 

 the Tcettiocampa series by Mr. Grote would be unwarranted" I reply, 

 that I have shown that the term Graphiphora is not ori;iinalIy 

 Ochsenheimer's but Hiibner's, and that its true type is Gothica, Check 

 List, 1876, p. 37. It is, therefore, strictly speaking, to be employed 

 instead of Tceniocampa. As to the affinities of Agrotis with Iceniocampa 



