132 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



NOTE ON EUCHCECA PERLINEATA, PACKARD. 



BY GEO. W. TAYLOR, WELLINGTON, B. C. 



In February of last year Mr. Pear.sall described as a new species, under 

 the name Euchxca exhumata, a motli standing in nearly all collections as 

 E. perlineata, Packard; and he is now,* in order to justify his action, 

 endeavouring to show that the original perlineata of Packard was not 

 what we all supposed it to be, but something quite different. 



In the course of his researches he has found two specimens in the 

 late Dr. Lintner's collection, labelled Larentia perlineata. 



If these are really Packard's original types, as Mr. Pearsall assumes, 

 and as, for the sake of argument, I am ready to admit; and if, further, they 

 are really specimens of Euchceca comptaria, Walker, as Mr. Pearsall 

 asserts, and as is quite possibly the case, and for the sake of argument I 

 will admit this too — though I think that in tlie face of the original 

 description and original figures o^ perlineata, and of the universal usage to 

 which I have before called attention, and in view, further, of the fact that 

 jNIr. Pearsall has admittedly made some mistakes in his determinations in 

 this genus, I might be justified in hesitating to accept his dictum in these 

 points — what then ? 



It merely shows us that Packard had a very confused idea of his own 

 species ; that he had indeed two species mixed, which is quite probable, 

 and that while he figured one form, which had not previously been made 

 known to science, and, as I believe, wrote his description from the same 

 form, he placed his type labels on another quite distinct form (almost 

 indistinguishable from a species of his own which he had described at the 

 same time and on the same page) which had previously received the name 

 Tephrosia ? comptaria from Walker. 



Under these circumstances, possibly Mr. Pearsall would be justified 

 in giving the figured species a new name as he has done, but for my part I 

 think it would be fairer to Packard, and much more convenient to 

 students, to allow the old name to stand. 



I really cannot acknowledge the propriety or see the advantage of 

 changing a well-known name backed up by a capital description and two 

 unmistakable figures, and, I repeat once more, by a usage of 30 years, just 

 because there is a possibility that two ancient specimens in a certain 

 collection may have been the o.iginal types, and may have been correctly 

 determined by Mr. Pearsall as specimens of another species. I shall 



*C.'VNADiAN Entomologist, XXXVIII, p. 36. 



April, 1907 



