THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 147 



Lyman in this case, because, with all the examples before them, Messrs. 

 Grote and Robinson separated out a good species with which a specimen 

 of another, previously known, was erroneously associated. By removing 

 one example, a good species remained, to which the name given by the 

 author could be correctly applied. 



All of us are apt to err in associating examples, and I have 

 always made it a rule to hold a name if I can do it. So I think Mr. 

 Lyman correct in this case on his statement of facts, though I had reached 

 a different conclusion from a somewhat different combination of real and 

 supposed facts. 



On page 122, Dr. Harrison G. Dyar, Washington, D. C, assistant in 

 charge of the Lepidoptera in the U. S. National Museum, has some 

 remarks on certain species of Acrouycta which are suggestive indeed. 



First, he accepts my identification of impleta with hiteicoma in 

 so grudging a spirit that he suggests destroying the type — of impleta, 

 I presume — "lest future changes in the synonymy result." It is to be 

 assumed that Dr. Dyar wishes to be taken seriously, and in view of the 

 fact that there are several hundred types in his charge, the suggestion is 

 unpleasant reading. It is a somewhat startling method of securing 

 stability of nomenclature ! 



Without disputing the facts as I stated them, that the type of brumosa, 

 Gn., directly compared with that of persuasa, Harv., proves them to be 

 identical, he yet proposes to retain persuasa, Harv., but to apply the 

 name brumosa to what we have heretofore considered hamamelis. In 

 other words, he desires to apply the name to a totally different species 

 from that which was in the hands of its describer. That Guenee mixed 

 up matters in attempting to associate Abbott's drawings of larvse with the 

 imagoes, is undoubtedly true, but it was the moth that was described and 

 named, not the larva. 



I am perfectly aware that a species is entirely represented only by all 

 its stages and both sexes of the adults; but it is nevertheless true that it is 

 the adult form that receives the name, and when we have the adult to 

 which the name is applied, we have assumed that we had the court 

 of ultimate resort by which the validity of the species must be tested. If 

 we could set that adult aside because the description does not quite fit it, 

 or because of an error in associating an earlier stage with the type, 

 we might just as well abandon the effort to fix a type. And why should 

 the U. S. National Museum desire types under such circumstances ? If 



