THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 37 



MR SMITH ON CERATHOSIA. 



BY A. R. GROTE, A. M., BREMEN. 



In reply to Mr. Smith's paper, somewhat inappropriately styled 

 ''Ardiida vs. Noctuidce" I would state that my original paper in Entom. 

 Amer. on Cerathosia had for its main object the pointing out of the 

 errors contained in Mr. Smith's original description of the genus in the 

 fteuration. When these errors are corrected according to my statements 

 (which latter in the main seem to be acknowledged by Mr. Smith as 

 correct), the probability that the moth is an Ardian next to Utetheisa 

 is weakened, and, as I have shown it is not a Lithosian, the chances are 

 we must look for its position elsewhere. The secondary object of my 

 paper was to suggest that we might find a better place for Cerathosia 

 next to Acopa, etc., in the Noctuidse. Now, in reply to Mr. Moeschler, 

 and Mr. Smith, I have to say, that I did not discuss vein 8 of Cerathosia. 

 I have also to complain that Mr. Smith is an unfair writer, who indulges 

 in large expressions of condemnation upon small grounds (as for instance 

 the fact that some Lithosians have an accessory cell, while I give no acces- 

 sory cell as a character of the sub-family), and above all a writer who mis- 

 represents the party he desires to criticize. Mr. Smith alludes to a 

 paper on Cerathosia " not yet reached." I advise him when that paper 

 is reached, to have any statement it may contain as to the neuration of 

 Cerathosia corrected according to my original corrections. I have no 

 objections to my writings being ''handled without gloves," as Prof. 

 Fernald says Mr. Smith does, when the criticism is fair and reasonable. 



A FINAL WORD ABOUT THE GENUS RILEYA. 



BY WM. H. ASHMEAD, 



In the last issue of the Can. Ent. Mr. Howard, with a commendable 

 solicitude for my entomological reputation, and under a heavy discharge 

 of deadly parallel columns, seeks to evade the question at issue between 

 us, i. e., who has priority in the use of the generic term Riley a; and not- 

 withstanding the opportunity was afforded him to rechnsten his interesting 

 genus, he seems loath to do so, and again, by a misrepresentation, makes 

 a claim of priority in publication. 



Had Mr. Howard written read instead of "published," he would have 

 been nearer the truth. However, this may have been another lapsus 



