THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 303 



says he obtained from a Mr. Raddon, who had evidently labelled it " near 

 Barnstaple, Devon." A photographic copy of Stephens's figure is repro- 

 duced at I a on the plate. This figure is accepted by Mr. Grote(CAN.ENT., 

 XXIII., 202) as that oi jacuUfera, Gn., but Prof. Smith doubts it (Bull. 

 44, U.S. Nat. Mus., p. 81). However, I think that a glance at the next 

 figure of the insect that appeared, taken doubtless from Stephens's speci- 

 men, will remove ail doubt as to what insect Stephens tried to represent. 

 This figure, which is reproduced at / /; on the plate [it is enlarged to 

 natural size], is from Wood's Index Entomologicus, pi. 9, fig. 149 (1839). 

 All must admit that it is one of the best figures of our American insect 

 ever published. Although Wood does not state definitely that his figure 

 was made from Stephens's specimen, we know he did thus make use of 

 Stephens's collection for many of his figures, as he states in his preface. 

 But one more figure of the insect seems to have appeared in English 

 works. This one, by Humphrey (in Humphrey and Westwood's British 

 Moths and their Trans., I., pi. xxiv., fig. i, 1843), was recently referred to 

 by Mr. Barrett (Ent. Month. Mag., XXV., 2 24) as being certainly a variety 

 of A. tritici. The fact is, as Humphrey states, that his figure was coi)ied 

 from Stephens's figure ; this was evidently not known to Mr. Barrett, as 

 the context of his article indicates. Humphrey's figure is reproduced at 

 ic on the plate. 



Up to 1847, the English entomologists considered subgothica a Brit- 

 ish insect and a distinct species. Then, Mr. Doubleday stated (The 

 Zoologist, v., 1728) that "Haworth's insect is evidently simply a variety of 

 either Agrotis tritici or aquiliiia. The species described and figured by 

 Stephens is American." For many years after this the name subgotJiica 

 rarely appeared in British lists and only as a variety of tj-itici ; ii appar- 

 ently does not occur at all in recent lists. It has never been taken in 

 England, so far as I can find any record, since Stephens's time. 



The name subgothica, Haw., was introduced into American literature 

 by Dr. Fitch in 1856 (Second Rept. on Insects of N. Y., p. 546). It has 

 been in universal use here since, and no American writer has seriously 

 questioned the identity of our species with the subgothica of Stephens and 

 later English writers, or even with xht subgothica of Haworth, until 1891, 

 when Mr. Grote changed his mind in accordance with the opinion of Mr. 

 Tutt. I think that all now agree that the species under discussion is dis- 

 tinctly American. It undoubtedly has never occurred in England, not- 

 withstanding the records of its English habitat by the earlier English 



