188 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



than to 4-lmeata". With reference to snbjuncta, G. & R., I repeat that 

 Guene'e himself determined our type as belonging to an undescribed 

 species, received also by him since the issue of the Species General, and 

 for which he had a collection name which we adopted. It seems thus 

 not likely that the W-latinum of the Species General could be our 

 species ; but much more likely that it is my atlantica. On page 233 

 cristifera, Walk., is preferred for liibefis, on the faith of Mr Butler's 

 reference. I have seen none of Mr. Butler's papers. My collection has 

 been distributed without my consent or knowledge, nor have I ever been 

 consulted in the slightest way by the British Museum authorities. I saw 

 the type oi cristifera, Walk., and it was not hibens. As stated by me, 

 and cited in the present Revision, the type of Acronycta cristifera is not 

 an Acrofiycta^ but a stone-gray Hadenoid form unknown to me. I did 

 not examine the eyes, but I should have suspected them to be naked, not 

 hairy, and the type wanted all the brighter shades of lubetis, while the 

 markings did not suggest to me iubens at all. It seems to me that Mr. 

 Butler is in error. According to the Revision, " the type of cor?iis is a 

 very bright, strongly-marked specimen, like (?) typical o/ivacea, but so 

 spread that the insect appears more plump, shorter winged, and differently 

 marked ". As the type was one of the specimens marked to be returned 

 to Mr. Hy. Edwards, and was, with all others, so marked so returned, it 

 is possible that I have been momentarily deceived by the brighter tints 

 and peculiar setting. But I knew olivacea well, having originally deter- 

 mined the species for Mr. Morrison as then undescribed. It appears that 

 Prof. Smith had re-described piirpurissata as a Hadena, and that the 

 fusion of the stigmata entitles the retention of this name as varietal. 



On page 262 I am credited with a species, M. dodgei, which I never 

 described, and which is one of Mr. Morrison's synonyms that I did not 

 refer in my lists, but of which I remember to have had a note. I did not 

 know Mr. Morrison's ectypa, nor, from the description, could I have 

 suspected it to be my bella, which has a close ally, as I pointed out, in 

 the European Dianthoecia magnolii. The author of the Revision has 

 compared the types, and the reference is to be accepted. With the 

 exception of egens, I believe I am responsible for the use ot Mr. Walker's 

 names in this genus adopted in the Revision. The condition of the 

 specimens representing Mr. Walker's types of Ce/aena was so indifferent 

 that it appeared to me they could not be determined, while the descrip- 

 tions are quite useless. In the list of species of Mameslra, p. 274, the 



