100 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



I do not consider it an adequate reply to my criticisms of Mr. Mor- 

 rison's publications, or to my complaints as to some misrepresentaions of 

 my writings by Mr. Morrison, that certain synonyms of mine (corrected 

 previously by myself) are brought up and offered as an answer to the one 

 and as an apology for the other. My original remarks remain rather in full 

 force, with the one exception where they refer to Agrotis exsertistigma, for 

 which latter I am sorry and have excused myself on the ground of Mr. 

 Morrison's retention of my material. In reply to Mr. Morrison's justifi- 

 cation of Eatricopis, there appears no character but the unanried tibiae 

 to distinguish it from other Heliothid genera in Mr. Morrison's diagnosis, 

 and it is there expresslv stated to differ by the " unarmed tibiae.'' Now 

 the term implies that it is ''beautifully armed," and hence is inappropriate. 

 With regard to Mr. Morrison's insinuations as to missing species in my 

 ;i List," it is the great good fortune of this " List " that it is incomplete 

 and thus awaits changes at Mr. Morrison's hands. My List must be 

 judged, however, by its predecessors in the same field, and not by infor- 

 mation acquired subsequent to its issuance. I wish to draw, once for all, 

 attention to the fact, that the most of Mr. Morrison's corrections in the 

 shape of criticisms are ex post facto. Mistakes corrected by myself, 

 determinations made by me when in England and France, are taken as 

 part of our common stock of knowledge by Mr. Morrison, and used on 

 occasion against me. I reply also finally to Mr. Morrison's charge as to 

 his redescription of /Uacina, that the author of a description, and not the 

 authority consulted on the subject, is the one accountable for publication, 

 while I am sorry that in certain of the successful ventures of Mr. 

 Morrison, where my responsibility is equal, I am neither mentioned nor 

 my courtesy acknowledged. A. R. Grote. 



[Having now given both of our correspondents a fair hearing, our 

 limited space will oblige us to refrain from publishing anything further on 

 this subject. — Ed. C. E.] 



Dear Sir, — 



I have recently united Agrotis scandais and muraenula in opposition 

 to my previously expressed opinion (Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, 1873,431), 

 that they were distinct. Mr. Lintner now calls my attention to the fact 

 and gives me good reasons for adhering to my previous opinion that the 

 species are distinct. It appears that the spe'eimens in the Buffalo Society's 

 collection do in fact belong to one species, but I am wrong in referring 

 both names to them. A. R. Grote. 



