78 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



adds a species " subusta '' to the genus, such a species was not then 

 published. Hiibner's Atethmia subusta is given later, in 1823, in his 

 Zutraege, under the numbers 205, 206. Now, Hiibner cites in the 

 Verzeichniss " 105 — 106." Perhaps he had intended a different and 

 earlier publication of subusta than that which was ultimately carried out. 

 There is also some evidence that Hiibner considered the European, and 

 not the South American species as typical of the genus Atethmia, to be 

 gathered from the text of the Zutraege itself. 



Again, Mr. Morrison says that Guenee' " takes out " of Hiibner's 

 genus the European Xerampelina. Guenee', however, in his Essai takes 

 no cognizance whatever of Hiibner's generic reference of his species. 

 Guenee' says of Xerampelina : L'unique espe'ce qui compose ce genre a ete' 

 place'e jusqiiici dans les Xanthies. Again, Guene'e in his " Specie's 

 General " does not, as Mr. Morrison states, refer subusta as the typical 

 species of Hiibner's genus. Guenee' there does not know subusta at all, 

 and says of the genus : " Ce petit genre, dont je n'ai emprunte a Hiibner 

 que le now, puis que dans son Verzeichniss, il se compose principalement (!) 

 de mes Cirroedia." etc. 



The question is one to which I had devoted considerable study, and 

 in a more general List of our moths, upon which I am engaged, I expect 

 to have occasion to note further evidence as to the use of Atethmia in 

 European works for Xerampelina. I shall be glad always to note correc- 

 tions to my List, which deviates so greatly from its predecessors that it 

 should not be expected to be everywhere exhaustively correct. And 

 although Mr. Morrison may not always be able ''to see the necessity of 

 this change," yet he will find that no generic title is there adopted without 

 a reason. A. R. Grote. 



Dear Sir, — 



Mr. Grote's letters in your last issue seem to contain, in the main, the 

 reasons why he made certain errors in regard to my work, and a repetition 

 of his former statement, to the effect that I had made five synonyms in 

 one of my papers containing descriptions of about sixty species ; the 

 former statement does not call for any word from me, but perhaps it would 

 not be out of the way (since we are on the subject of re-descriptions of 

 old species) to ask why Mr. Grote has re-described within six months the 

 common Agrotis incivis Guen. as a new genus and species, under the 

 title of Anicla Alabama ; or why the well-known Orthosia ferruginoides 



