THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. So 



notice, bv Dr. Packard, of this paper, which I almost lack the patience to 

 discuss. Now, after the extended work of Mr. Smith upon the genitalia 

 of the Noctuidge, comes Mr. Hulst with his genitalic sub-families of the 

 Phycitince. This is what I meant by Mr. Hulst's "mission." 



And now as to the Pyralidce. The student will find that, in pro- 

 posing the group or sub-family Epipasdiiince ( Epipaschice), in 1878, I 

 gave a long comparison of the structure (always excepting the genitalia) 

 on page 685 of the U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. IV. Therefore, although I 

 emphasize the character of the peculiar development of the male antennae, 

 I did not then base my new group on this character alone, which Mr. 

 Hulst now erroneously charges me with doing (p. 11). May I ask Mr. 

 Hulst why, in his subsequent paper on this group in Ent. Am., he credited 

 its creation to Lord Walsingham ? I am glad to be able to refer to my 

 paper of 1878, in which I, for the first time in America, gave full details 

 with figures of the structure of genera of the Phycitince (Phycidce), always 

 excepting the genitalia. On page 692, I.e., I define this group quite 

 fully, and draw attention to the peculiar structure of the female frenulum, 

 a character which I did not find mentioned by my predecessors. I gave 

 abundant generic details, with figures of the neuration, which I recapitu- 

 lated a little later in the American Entomologist. May I ask what Mr. 

 Hulst means when he says of these papers that I made "no progress"? 

 In the pages of the Brooklyn Entomological publications will be found 

 Prof. Fernald's revision of Mr. Hulst's synonyms in the Pyralidce. To 

 have redescribed Walker's irrecognizable species is no reproach, but Mr. 

 Hulst has even gone into other families for his " new species," and Mr. 

 Ragonot calls his method of descnljii^' -I think, correctly — "haphazard." 

 As to this sort of work, I think 1 may repeat Mr. Hulst's question: 

 " Is it scientific ?" Had Mr. Hulst not repressed my work, and I think 

 entirely misrepresented it on the Pliycitince, giving my titles away to 

 others, it is probable that I never would have penned my text to his 

 sermon. And had his work in descriptive entomology been of a different 

 nature, I should have had no legitimate doubt as to the value of his 

 structural observations. 



