236 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



of the Museum ; my extras came in a few days later. No one has 

 responded as yet, so I do not know whether I have made converts or not. 

 Under these circumstances, Mr. H. H. Lyman's paper on the species 

 of Cailimorp/ia, Can. Ent., Oct., 18S7, agreeing as if does in the main 

 with my own conclusions, was most gratifying, and restores to some extent 

 my faith in the intelligence of Lepidopterists. Mr. Lyman, while agree- 

 ing in the main with my results (he could not have seen my paper), pre- 

 sents some differences to which I beg to call attention. I will do it under 

 the call of species, following his order, which differs from my own. 



C. LECONTEI Bd. 



Mr. Lyman accuses me of mistaking the type of this species, and he 

 is right. My excuse is that I have never seen lecontei as Mr. Lyman 

 here fixes it. I had seen Boisduval's figure, and Herrich-Schaeffer's figure, 

 which evidently referred to the same species. I have never seen speci- 

 mens like Mr. Lyman's figures i, 2 and 3. His figure 4 and all the others 

 are familiar to me. The most obvious and striking point in Boisduval's 

 figure was the transverse black band near the base of the primaries, and 

 as I knew only one species that had this peculiarity, I referred the name 

 to that species, crediting the figures with sufficient inaccuracy to cover the 

 differences between them and my specimens. I did not deem it possible 

 that there was a form that I had not seen, so close as to be confusing. 

 As it proves, I was mistaken, and I confess Mr. Lyman's figures i, 2 and 

 3 were a surprise to me. He is undoubtedly correct, however, in his 

 references and identification of the species. 



Var. confinis AVlk. This is without doubt a mere synonym of militaris 

 Harr. Mr. Butler kindly sent me a drawing of that form. The Museum 

 series readily fills all gaps between figures 6 and 8 on Mr. Lyman's plate, 



Query. — Is the typical lecontei local ? It seems passing strange that 

 none of the numerous collections I have seen should have a single speci- 

 men referable to it, so as to save me from blundering ! 



C. CONTIGUA Wlk. 



This needs no further reference. I thoroughly agree with Mr. Lyman 

 in all he says. It may be well to say here that in my paper I have 

 described and figured the genitalia of nearly all the species, and the differ- 

 ences there noted bear out the conclusions otherwise reached. 



C. CONFUSA Lyman. 



Undoubtedly a good species, which in my paper I have referred to as 



