THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 59 



I notice, also, Mr. Morrison's remark that I have mistaken the 

 generic characters of Hydrocele, semiaperta. This species, with hairy eyes, 

 is placed by Mr. Morrison first in Hydroecia, a genus which has the eyes 

 naked. It was sent to me as a n. s. of Hydroecia by Mr. Morrison for 

 examination, arid I then returned the species determined as belonging to 

 a genus allied to, but distinct from Hydroecia. In the Proceedings of the 

 Academy I merely discuss the priority of the names Apamea and 

 Hydroecia, show that they are synonyms, and adopt Apamea and refer all 

 the American species described under Hydroecia to Apamea. Among 

 them is Mr. Morrison's semiaper/a. There is not a word as to the 

 structure of the species, and, in fact. I refer to semiaperta in the next 

 description as Hydroecia semiaperta. It was not my intention then to 

 discuss its structure or erect the new crenus. to which I have always in 

 letters stated it to belong. 



Mr. Morrison speaks of uigresce/is as a synonym of fasciolaris. I have 

 examined and determined both species as distinct from specimens in the 

 collection of the American Entomological Society. The two are totally, 

 and, I believe, even generically different. 



Mr. Morrison allows himself to make an extraordinary statement with 

 regard to one of the few generic names proposed in my List and its 

 vSupplement, to the effect that such names without further description need 

 not be adopted. Independent of the fact that it is customary to retain 

 such names as can be proven by the works of Hiibner, Ochsenheimer. 

 Walker and many others, the view taken by Mr. Morrison is untenable 

 from the consideration that I have indicated my type and clearly circum- 

 scribed the genus by an enumeration of the species in every case. Science 

 is occupied by the fact and not the name ; by his criticism Mr. Morrison 

 shows himself affected by the name and not the fact. There can be no 

 doubt that I have made such genera recognizable by including under them 

 described species and thus facts and things admitted by science as 

 existing and already defined. My generic names are as strictly to be 

 preserved in these cases as if they were defined with the minuteness which 

 characterizes Mr. Scudders definition of Papilio. Take, for instance, my 

 genus Eucoptocnemis, proposed in my List for the HeUop/wbus fimbriaris 

 of Guenee. Even the Etymology of the name suggests my reference to 

 ( iuenee's statement that his species has armed tibial, and my inference 

 that then it cannot be a Heliophobus. which has them unarmed. If from 

 such data as this no conclusion can be drawn and no action taken by :i 



