THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 233 



description of the adult is not bad, and the description of the larva is so 

 good as to make it certain that if it is ever found on the given food-plant, 

 its identification will be reasonably satisfactory. 



Several other species have been so identified, and the names are in 

 common use. 



Concerning the species of Acronycta, it is certain that Guenee has 

 mixed things, and he may have done so in two or three different ways. 

 If the drawings of the adult and larva were not on the same sheet, he may 

 have changed the association, or it may have been changed before it got 

 into his hands. If there was an adult from Abbott, it may not have been 

 the specimen actually bred, but one associated with it as a form or variety. 

 In those early days variation had a wider range, and it is not incredible 

 that "Aamamelis" and " afflict 'a" might have been considered the same, 

 specifically. Finally — and this I consider the most probable — Guenee 

 actually described his species from Abbott's drawings, but incorrectly 

 identified the examples before him with the drawing from which he had 

 just made his description. He does not say this, however, but alleges 

 specimens in existence. 



Question 2. — Under the circumstances, shall the specimens referred 

 to by Guene'e and labeled by him be considered as the types, or shall the 

 description of the larva determine the species intended? 



Personally, I have decided to accept the labeled adult as represent- 

 ing the species, though I have no doubt that the association of adult and 

 larva was due to a mix-up, and was an error. The adult was first described; 

 the error is in applying the larval description. 



Finally, it is, of course, a serious deprivation to be without a sense of 

 humour, but at the risk of losing all reputation in that direction, I must yet 

 confess an utter inability to see anything funny in Dr. Dyar's original note 

 concerning types. He says the suggestion that the type be now destroyed 

 was a joke. He must know, of course, and therefore my remarks, based 

 on an ignorance of that fact, have lost their point and must be withdrawn. 

 I have no apology to make, for they were fully justified by the literal 

 meaning of the expression criticised by me. 



There are altogether too many of my own types in the U. S. National 

 Museum to make the matter anything but a serious one to me, and I have 

 too much other material that I expect to send there to make such remarks 

 a matter of indifference. 



