THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 231 



THE NORTH AMERICAN CALLIMORPHAS. 



A REPLY TO CRITICS. 



BY H. H. LYMAN, MONTREAL. 



Since my article on the North American Calliinorphas appeared in 

 the Canadian Entomologist for October, 1887, a number of papers 

 upon the same subject, and containing certain criticisms of my views, 

 appeared in subsequent numbers of this magazine, and in Entomologica 

 Americana ; and, in addition, I received certain letters upon the same 

 subject from entomologists to whom I had sent copies of my article. 

 To these critics I now propose to make a perhaps rather tardy reply : — 



Mr. J, B. Smith had spoken before the Entomological Club of the A. 

 A. A. S. upon this subject, and the discussion had been reported in En- 

 tomologica Americana, but, as Mr. Smith surmised, I had not seen the 

 report till after my paper was in the hands of the printer ; and, although 

 Mr. Smith's paper in the Proceedings of the National Museum appeared 

 before mine, I did not hear of its issue till after the publication of my own. 

 In the Canadian Entomologist for December, 1887, appeared Mr. 

 Smith's review of my paper, in which he admitted the correctness of my 

 determination of the true Lecontei of Boisduval, and of many of my con- 

 tentions, though expressing his dissent from others, especially in the matter 

 of nomenclature. There was, however, one typographical error of some im- 

 portance in that paper, on page 236, line 27, where the figures 6 and 8 

 should have been 4 and 6. In that paper, Mr. Smith arranged the species 

 of this genus in a shghtly different order from that adopted by me, by chang- 

 ing the order of the two forms Confusa and Suffusa. 



This is a small matter, and one about which I am not disposed to 

 quarrel, especially as it seems to me that no linear arrangement of species 

 can ever be quite satisfactory, as to correctly express the full relationship 

 of species, we should require to group them in all three dimensions of 

 space. But the chief issues between us were whether Vestalis should be 

 regarded as a distinct species, or only a synonym of Fulvicosta, and as to 

 the correct application of the names Cofiscita, Lactata, Confusa^ Suffusa 

 and Reversa. 



In regard to the first point, Mr. Smith conjectured that I had never 

 seen a true Vestalis, and he very kindly sent me a specimen as typical of 

 that form. This specimen is certainly very remarkable, as it is much 



