18 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



where I have referred collectively to the species of Crocota, I have also 

 expressly referred to Mr. Reakirt's descriptions, giving my reasons for not 

 particularly citing the species by name. Hence, my writings have had 

 the exactly contrary effect, to that stated by Mr. Smith, " of causing others 

 to lose track of" Mr. Reakirt's " descriptions." I always reminded 

 students of the existence of Mr. Reakirt's descriptions, though I confessed 

 I could not make them out. Nor is Mr. Smith apparently any wiser than 

 I. I did, indeed, suppose that nigricans was a synonym of opella, or 

 founded on the dark form of that species, but I kept this and all other 

 surmises to myself, because I had no certain data to go upon, and a 

 scientific writer must, in such cases, have a reasonable certainty. With 

 regard to Iceta^ I, in my first list, am the first to refer treatii here, to show 

 that I had probably rediscovered a totally unknown species since Boisdu- 

 val's figure. I first, in fact, direct attention to this unrecognized figure, 

 which has been copied in Encyc. Brit. To me belongs the credit of 

 directing Mr. Smith's attention to this figure of Iceta and its probable 

 identity with treatii in my first Check List. This identification is not 

 quite assured in the absence of any description ; hence, in my nev/ Check 

 List, I made a query. If Mr. Smith had written correctly and impartially 

 on the genus Crocota he should have said : Mr. Grote first refers this 

 genus to the Arctii?ice on account of the presence of ocelli, and removes 

 it from the Lithosiince where he leaves Ameria. Further, Mr. Grote has 

 figured the species he described in Proc. Ent. Soc, and no doubt exists, 

 in a confusing genus, of the species he intended. Instead of this, with 

 the evident intention of making an adverse criticism coiite qui coute, we 

 have the perversions above exposed. As was the case when Mr. Smith 

 replied to my statement, that, in the Deltoidince, the eyes were always 

 " naked," that in one genus the eyes were " lashed " (as if these characters 

 were contradictory or exclusive), it must seem clear that the limit of 

 proper criticism is exceeded by Mr. Smith. The errors of an author must 

 be judged by the material at his command in specimens and literature. 

 If under all the circumstances under which he laboured his work is of a 

 character virtually to advance the study of his subject, and if a large 

 proportion of his determinations are accurate and in the state of the 

 science very opportune, no right-minded person should be al)le to bring 

 himself to prevert such labours. I may remark, in conclusion, that I do 

 not regard Cydosia, Cerathosia or Giiophcela, as Arctiina, and I believe 



