THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 79 



<Guen. is re-described as Xanthia ralla G. & R. ; or Acronycta brumosa 

 Guen. and innotata Guen. as A. verrilli G. & R. and Diphthcra graefii 

 Grote ; or Celiptera frustulum Guen. as a new genus and species, 

 Litomitus eloiigatus Grote ; or Plusia on Guen. as Plusia fratclla Grote; or 

 — but we say no more. It is only human for the best of naturalists 

 to make mistakes occasionally. 



In regard to the latter statement of Mr. Grote, it is perhaps unneces- 

 sary to repeat again that of the five species of mine which Mr. Grote 

 considers as synonyms, three were published in papers contemporaneous 

 with mine, having priority by one day, and which I could not have for- 

 seen ; one was published on the authority of Mr. Grote himself 

 (Mamestra illabefacta), and the other (Hadena rasilis) is not a synonym, 

 but a distinct species, and Mr. Grote is in error in considering it identical 

 with Elaphria grata Hiibn. 



In ignoring Mr. Grote's genera Eucoptocncmis, Exyra and others, I 

 simply follow the example of Dr. Speyer and the best European 

 authorities in not recognizing catalogue names unaccompanied by a generic 

 •description. 



With regard to Mr. Grote's remarks on my genus Eutricopis, I consider 

 Tricopis (which, by the way, is a synonym of Euleucyptera, founded by 

 the same author) as a generic term covering all the characters of the 

 insect or group of insects which it was founded to contain ; the three- 

 clawed tibiae is but one of many characters. Therefore, when I discovered 

 a genus which approached Tricopis in many of its characters, but was 

 sufficiently distinct from it, I very properly gave it the name of Eutricopis. 



Mr. Grote does not agree with me when I unite Bolina nigresccfis G. 

 & R. with fasciolaris Hiibn. Bolina fasciolaris, is a very common and 

 variable species ; I have examined a large series, among which many 

 agree with Grote and Robinson's excellent figure, and as they are 

 from the same locality, Texas, I have no doubt that it is their species 

 which I have identified. I have also carefully examined several copies of 

 Hiibner's figures, and am confident that the two species are identical. 



Mr. Grote closes with some remarks in regard to his " List," the great 

 value of which I cheerfully acknowledge ; however, it is open to criticism 

 in many particulars ; for instance, the omission of several of M. Guenee's 

 species, one of the omitted species being described by Mr. Grote under a 

 ■different name, and is in addition placed in a genus to which it by no 

 means belongs. I also object to the admission at present of the genus 



