THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 97 



Cysnia Dubia from Hudson's Bay, and there would seem to be no doubt 

 at all that it is a drab-coloured variety of Leucarct ia Acrcea $ , and there are 

 also in the museum three other very similar females from the U. S., the 

 only noticeable difference being that in Walker's type the wings are a 

 little shorter in proportion to width, and that the veins are light-coloured. 

 Sir George Hampson also called my attention to the fact that American 

 entomologists have also been in error in referring Platarctia Parthenos, 

 Harris, as a synonym of Hyperborea, Curtis, as these species are distinct, 

 the latter appearing to be the American representative of Hyphoraia 

 Lapponica, Thunb., and Harris's name should, therefore, be restored. I 

 cannot understand how Parthenos was ever placed as a synonym of 

 Hyperborea, as Curtis's description does not at all fit any specimen of 

 Parthenos which I have ever examined. 



Postscript. — As this paper contained criticisms upon unpublished 

 and privately-expressed opinions of Sir George Hampson. I did not feel 

 that I could publish it without referring it to him. Sir George replied 

 that I had not stated his views quite correctly, and wrote : " I maintain 

 that Walker originally wrote his description from the $ Virginica only, 

 and that, afterwards finding two other specimens before publication, he 

 added to his description ; otherwise, he would have described the male 

 first, as was his custom. The $ Virginica is the only one of the three to 

 which the first part of the description applies, and is, therefore, Walker's 

 type (a) — not (c) as you make it. The missing type (b) will not fit in 

 with this first part of description, vide Grote's description of it, nor does 

 the other specimen (c) now in the collection. Therefore, the $ Virginica 

 is the type of the species." 



To this I reply that the two remaining types reached the museum 

 from the same source and on the same day, viz., 19th June, 1839, as 

 shown by the Register, and were apparently so near together in the box in 

 which received, that in numbering them one was numbered 937 and the 

 other 947. The number of the missing type cannot be determined, but 

 it was received on the same day. These specimens were, therefore, in the 

 museum for sixteen years before being described, and, as they were' of the 

 same genus and from the same country, must have been kept together, 

 and so have been before Walker when he was working on the group. 



Walker does not use the word female at all, which shows that he 

 considered the first part of the description applicable, so far as it went, to 

 both sexes. Sir George says that it only fits the specimen of Virginica, 



