THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. l ( Jl 



pig. 4 , — Tip of vestigial proleg showing crotchets, much enlarged. 

 Fig, 5 . — Crotchets of functional proleg, highly magnified. 

 Fig. 6. — Crotchets of functional proleg arranged in two groups, with 

 vestigial bases of crotchets between them. 



FURTHER ABOUT THE TYPES OF ACRONYCTA. 



BY HARRISON G. DYAR, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



Prof. Smith's remarks in the May Canadian Entomologist contain 

 two separate counts. He implies that I might be led by personal views 

 to an improper treatment of the collection in my charge. This implica- 

 tion I indignantly repudiate, and leave Prof. Smith to explain his breach 

 of etiquette as best he may. While Prof. Smith's lack of humour has led 

 him to misunderstand my views, he has no right to imply that with 

 any personal views whatever I would not properly conserve the National 

 Collection. This collection, rapidly becoming the finest in the country, 

 will continue to be conserved with the greatest care. As to the synonymy 

 of the Acronyctas, Prof. Smith makes two assumptions. First, that the 

 specimens now in the British Museum labeled as Guene'e's types are still as 

 labeled and described by him ; second, that if so, they are properly types. 

 As to the first assumption, I am not in a position at present to dispute 

 it, though I think that some admixture or confusion might have easily 

 arisen in transference, and considering the length of time that has passed. 

 As to the second assumption, I regard it as debatable in the cases where 

 Guenee described larvae. In such cases, under the most favourable con- 

 ditions, Guenee had before him Abbot's figure of a moth and larva and 

 some specimens which Guenee himself thought to be the same species. 

 Suppose in one of the cases under discussion that Guenee had before him 

 Abbot's figure of the moth and larva of subochrea and also adult speci- 

 mens of afflicta ; that he regarded all as of one species and drew up a 

 description under the name hamamelis. Now, if this description agrees 

 with subochrea, and does not agree with afflicta, what is the type of 

 Guenee's hamamelis ? Clearly it is Abbot's drawing and not the speci- 

 mens labeled by Guenee. Are we to be blindly led by a specimen 

 labeled " type," which may be white, while the description is black ? 

 Is not what the author described and intended to count for something? 

 I am a believer in types, and where they are certainly the specimens from 

 which the author described, I would regard them as of high value. 

 Walker's types are invaluable, and I never supposed that anyone would 



