THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 189 



errors as to vittula and dodgei are repeated. I do not find in the list my 

 J/, niimula (also omitted in my late Check List) nor Dr. Harvey's D. 

 pallilis. Hiibner's confusa and mucens are much like Hy/omiges, and I 

 so referred them in my Check List, 1875-6. Otherwise the species of 

 North American Mamestra and Dia/tt/wecia known to me seem to be all 

 included in the Revision, which credits me with thirty-three species and 

 two varieties. I would correct this so far that lube?is should be restored 

 and that oregonica should be added as a variety of trifolii. Three well- 

 marked species, sutrijia, ferrealis and Dinimocki, are unknown to the 

 author of the Revision. The latter should be recognizable since it is a 

 peculiar form, and the type was in my collection, which latter ought rather 

 to have been preserved as I left it, intact, in the true interests of science. 

 What I must have suffered at having my Noctuidae overhauled by Mr. 

 Butler may be imagined. 



MR. WALKER'S TYPES. 



BY A. R. GROTE, A. M., BREMEN, GERMANY. 



In the Can. Ent., p. 136, Prof. Smith says that our reference of 

 Edema 2 transversata, Walk., in 1868, Xo lignicolor is an error. In other 

 cases e. g. Apa/Uesis radians, etc., our testimony is borne out, and now 

 comes up the question of a changing in specimens since 1S68. Mr. 

 Walker's specimens are not marked type, but placed merely above the 

 label. They can have been changed, and the question is, whether a name 

 of Walker's can be employed which in any way contradicts in its descrip- 

 tion the supposed species. In my Revised Check List 4, 1 say : '• Clearly 

 there is room for misapprehension of what specimens are really types had 

 we not a check for the reference. This is the criterion for types, that 

 they do not contradict the original description," Can. Ent., XX., 75. If 

 the description of Edema ? transversata contradicts Ellida gelida in any 

 particular it should not be accepted. If it agrees well with ligfiicoior, our 

 original reference is probably correct. I do not now recall this particular 

 reference, and a possible error in our notes, or their transcriptions, might 

 have occurred. But we knew lignicolor very well, and I am the first to 

 restore and interpret this name, reducing virgata to a synonym and giving 

 the correct synonymy of the species. I do not object to as rigorous a use 

 of Mr. Walker's names as is consistent with the law of priority. But I 

 object to the putting forward of this or that supposed type of Mr, Walker's 

 without reference to the description. The proposal by Stal and others to 



