THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 167 



species was fully in our mind when we visited Dr. Boisduval in Paris. In 

 the collection of this savant is the typical specimen of Godart, and it is a 

 specimen of Thcda calanus, nobis, for which we have used the name of 

 Thecla JEdwardsii as a synonym. But we are by no means satisfied that Mr. 

 Scudder is right. Opinions may well differ as to a figure without description, 

 which even Mr. Scudder finds faulty. It may be said with equal justice that 

 Hubner's figure represents T. calanus, nob. (T 7 . Edwardsii), and only where 

 it is defective does it approach T inorata (I 7 . calanus, Scudder). 



The chances are also against Hubner's having figured both sexes of the 

 usually unspotted T inorata with the spotted secondaries of T. calanus, nob. 

 Leconte has certainly figured T. inorata, and as we stated before, Boisduval 

 has used the specimen of Godart's T.falacer (T. Edwardsii, Saund.), while 

 furnishing the text. Boisduval considered Leconte's plate as representing a 

 form of T. falacer, Godart, and erroneously so, as Leconte figured for the 

 first and only time Thecla inorata ; Mr. Scudder's version of Hubner's plate 

 to the contrary notwithstanding. We are at a loss to understand Mr. Scud- 

 der's remark, that we have come to an '-erroneous conclusion respecting 

 Boisduval and Leconte's plate, which, bad as it is, can certainly only repre- 

 sent calanus" (i. e. T. inorata'). With the exception of the stricture, this 

 accurately represents our published opinion with regard to that plate. 



Dr. Boisduval cited Hubner's calanus in the text to T. falacer, because he 

 considered, and in our opinion correctly, that Hubner's figure represented 

 Godart's species, which latter he had before him. But that he mistrusted 

 both Hubner's and Leconte's figures is very evident. He preferred Godart's 

 later name and used his type. 



With respect to the citations of Mr. Scudder, under the synonymy of the 

 two species, there is much that is unnecessary as well as erroneous. Any 

 reference to such an inaccurate compilation as that of Mr. Weidemeyer is a 

 work of supererogation in a matter like the present. Leaving Hubner's 

 figure on one side, we have Godart and Harris's description of Thecla falacer, 

 and our own of T. inorata to fall back upon, so that the certain determina- 

 tion of the two species with all necessary citations is as follows : 



Thecla inorata: 



Thecla inorata, G. and R. Descrip. Am. Lep. No. 3, p. 1, January, 1868. 

 Thecla falacer, Boisd. Lee. plate xxix., figs 1-5. 



Thecla inorata, Saund. Can. Ent., Vol. II., 61-64 ; G. and R. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 

 I. 172-3. 



Thecla falacer: 



TJiecla falacer, Godart Encyc. ix. 600, 633 ; Boisd. Lee. (text in part) ; Harris, 



Treat Ins. Veg. Ed. 1862, 276. 

 Tliecla Edwardsii, Saunders i. Litt. G. and R. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. I. 172. 

 (?) Rusticus armatus calanus, Hubner, Exot. Sclim. i., figs. 1-4. 

 Thecla calanus, TVestw. Gen. Piurn. Lep. ii., 486 ; G. and R. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. I. 



172-3. 



