94 PROCEEDINGS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



In the list cited Dr. MacGillivray is not credited with the 

 Tenthredinoidea as he should have been. Inasmuch as sev- 

 eral of his manuscript generic names are here for the first 

 time given standing, owing to the inclusion of described 

 species, I deem it necessary to state that Dr. A. D. MacGil- 

 livray should be cited as the author of the. systematic portion 

 of the Tenthredinoidea in the above list in spite of the fact 

 that he is not so credited. 



To the uniuitiaied it could easily appear that the third edi- 

 tion of the Insects of New Jersey was written by Mr. Silas 

 R. Morse, Curator of the New Jersey State Museum. Be 

 this as it may, it is necessary to call attention to a number of 

 inaccuracies with reference to the systematic side of the 

 groups in which the writer was to be author but of which he 

 did not see proof sheets of any kind in which the matter 

 might have been set straight. That even the notes not 

 written by the specialists might have been improved had the 

 specialists been allowed to read the proof becomes evident, for 

 example, from a perusal of the introductory remarks to the list 

 of Tenthredinoidea. In the former list Dr. Ashmead had two 

 superfamilies, the Tenthredinoidea and Siricoidea, whereas 

 in the present list Dr. MacGillivray has one only, namely, the 

 Tenthredinoidea, and this to cover the groups formerly em- 

 braced by the terms Tenthredinoidea and Siricoidea, yet the 

 almost unchanged wording that did service for the Tenthredi- 

 noidea in Dr. Ashtnead's arrangement is made to serve as an 

 introduction to Dr. MacGillivray's conception of the Ten- 

 thredinoidea, thus making it appear that the Siricoidea of 

 Ashmead is made up of sawflies. 



In the manuscript submitted by the writer the fact that a 

 species had been referred from one genus to another was in- 

 dicated by giving the old generic name within parentheses, 

 with the sign of equality preceding the name within the pa- 

 rentheses; generic names regarded assubgenera, however, were 

 given within parentheses along with the species involved, but 

 without the use of the equality sign . This arrangement has been 

 changed by entirely dropping out many of the generic names 

 so enclosed or where the enclosed names occur they appear 

 uniformly without the sign of equality, so that the intent 

 is destroyed and they serve only to call attention to the fact 

 that the immediately involved species and perhaps one or 

 more following have been transferred from the genus in paren- 

 theses or take the name within parentheses as a subgeneric 

 designation. To further complicate matters subgenera are in 

 some cases given as headings the same as genera, but in dif- 



