THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 179 



In that famous entomological year, 1877, I took Scopelosomas for the 

 tirst time ; they were in great abundance. From the latter part of 

 September to the first day of December I took about 800 moths, mostly 

 Scopelosoma and Lithop/uuie, the bulk of the Scops, being of that form 

 now known as Moffatiana. I had noticed a difference in the depth of 

 shading in the yellow ones, but thought it the result of age and exposure. 



In November I visited Mr. Grote in Buffalo, taking with me represen- 

 tatives of my recent captures, and received from him over a dozen names 

 of Scops, and Lit/is., and amongst them 6". Grcefiana. In following 

 years I observed that the yellowish form was just as fresh as the reddish 

 one, and that in some localities one would greatly outnumber the other, 

 and I began to suspect that we might have in these forms different moths. 

 About this time Roland Thaxter, who is now, I understand, entitled to 

 the prefix of Dr., opened communication with me, with a view to ex- 

 change ; to him I expressed my suspicion, and sent to him an example of 

 the light form as being least abundant with me, and received the reply, 

 that he saw no difference in it from those he took. I then sent him the 

 reddish form -. he expressed delight, never having seen the same before, 

 and enquired if Mr. Grote had seen it. I told him that I had got the 

 name from just such specimens. 



I supplied him with a good series, and he went into communication 

 with Mr. Grote about it, and it seems with some difficulty succeeded in 

 persuading Mr. Grote that it was deserving of a separate name. And 

 now Prof Smith, by the examination of the genitalia, finds them widely 

 apart. I, by observing their habits, had suspected this might be the case, 

 but could not prove it, whilst from appearance alone Mr. Grote had 

 failed even to suspect it. 



As resemblance is not always proof that they are one, so the lack of 

 it is not a demonstration that they are separate. In the early part of 

 1890 I had an opportunity of examining an extensive series of Litho- 

 phanes in the collection of Capt. Geddes, Toronto. I could arrange in 

 line 30 or 40 Disposita, Feiulca, Fe?'realis, SigJiosa, Bethunei, in such a 

 way as to make it appear impossible to tell where the separation should be 

 made. What verdict would the genitalia give in this case ? I would expect 

 it to be in favour of their being artificial species of one natural species ; 

 yet it may not, but suppose it did ? let no one think that I would favour 

 the obliterating of a single name. J. Alston Moffat. 



