THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 57 



MAMESTRA CIRCUMCINCTA, Smith. 



BY JOHN B. SMITH, SC. D., NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 



The above species was described by me in the Proceedings of the 

 U. S. National Museum, Vol. XIV., page 253, in my revision of the 

 genus Mainestra. Recently Mr. Grote has questioned the distinctness 

 of this species from olivacea. I could hardly credit this as being serious, 

 and barely referred to the matter in the September, 1896, number of the 

 Canadian Entomologist, page 240. In the December number, page 301, 

 Mr. Grote returns to this subject, and again suggests that circmncincta 

 may be either olivacea or comis. He refers to the fact that the descrip- 

 tion resembles that of both the species cited by him, and brings in Mr. 

 Beutenmiiller to testify to the fact that my species closely resembles 

 olivacea. Mr. BeutenmuUer is not a specialist in the Noctuidse, and not 

 entitled to an opinion that would carry decisive weight. Furthermore, it 

 was not fair to Mr. Beutenmiiller to ask him to make the comparison 

 without first referring him to my description. Mr. Grote speaks as if the 

 statement that circumcincta, or its description rather — for he has never 

 seen the species — resembles olivacea was an important one and a dis- 

 covery of his own. He does not refer to the fact that in my description I 

 say : " the male resembling olivacea so strongly that I compared it 

 closely at first, expecting a variety of this protean form." It seems to me 

 it would be impossible to state more definitely the fact that I recognized 

 the very close resemblance, superficially, between the species newly de- 

 scribed by me and the very variable one long ago characterized. Mr, 

 Grote also omits entirely the fact that the last sentence in the description 

 and my comment on it reads : " The sexual characters, however, refer 

 the species to the renigera group." On plate X., accompanying my 

 paper, I delineate the sexual structures of circuvicincta at figure 52, and 

 oi olivacea at figure 53. The two are so utterly different that it is simply 

 impossible that one type should be a modification of the other. My 

 species is, therefore, based upon a structural character primarily, and 

 after that upon colour and markings. Now, if Mr. Grote will claim that 

 these structural characters are not of specific value, then the question of 

 whether my species may be olivacea is open for discussion. Until he 

 takes this stand, these two species cannot be compared for a moment 

 whatever their superficial similarity may be. I have asserted time and 

 again that differences in sexual structure invariably indicate differences 

 [n species. Many other Entomologists have taken the same stand. Mr. 



