58 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Grote has not, so far as I know, taken any stand in the matter, except so 

 far as to deny the value of these characters for generic separation. If he 

 is willing to assert that these structures have no specific value, then the 

 question is an open one ; but I submit that to bring the matter before the 

 readers of the Canadian Entojmologist, as if there was a mere matter of 

 colour and marking to be considered, is neither scientific nor honest. 

 Before suggesting the identity of the two species he should have referred 

 to the fact that I recognized their superficial resemblance, and separated 

 them upon a distinct structural character. 



One other point in Mr. Grote's paper is worth noting. In the matter 

 of Agrotis crassa, Mr. Grote excuses his failure to recognize the true 

 character of the frontal structure by stating that neither he nor the 

 Museum with which he is connected possesses a microscope. He does 

 not distinctly say so, but it would seem as if neither did they possess an 

 ordinary hand lens of from }4 to ^ inch focal length, which is all that is 

 necessary to recognize external structures of Noctuid moths serving for 

 the division of genera. If not even the simplest and most necessary 

 appliances for study are at hand, is any man justified in making assertions 

 on points concerning which he cannot have any possible certainty ? But 

 even without the optical assistance to which I have referred, surely either 

 Mr. Grote or the Institution at Hildesheim has in its possession a little 

 camel's-hair brush, and with this, or even the frayed end of an ordinary 

 wooden toothpick, the scales from the front can be sufiiciently removed 

 to enable one to recognize the frontal structure with the unassisted eye. 

 One who makes assertions as to structure, should at least take every 

 means within his power to make certain that they are accurate. Mr. 

 Grote evidently has not done this, and in every assertion that he has 

 made, concerning the identity of genera in this Feltia matter, I have 

 proved him wrong. To escape from the necessity of considering his 

 genus CariieaJes a synonym of Agronoina, he seems now to be willing to 

 recognize the distinctness of the division that I have called Forosagrotis, 

 basing it, however, upon the fact that the antennae in the typical species 

 are pectinated. Tliis lie considers a good generic character, differing in 

 that point from all the authors who have written on this genus. Unfortu- 

 nately, the genus Car/icadcs contains species with antennae pectinated 

 and antenn.T serrated, and so also does the genus that I have called 

 Porosagrotis. There is no line of distinct demarcation between these 

 two types of antennal structure, so that I could not utilize them even for 



