232 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 



smaller than any specimen of Fulvicosta that I ever saw, measuring only 

 38^ mm. in expanse, and is, as Mr. Smith says, " whiter and more frail 

 and Euchcetes like," though it has none of the semi-diaphanous appear- 

 ance of E. Collar- is. It is, of course, impossible to form a safe judgment 

 upon a single specimen, and I can only say, that if a full series should 

 show constant differences from Fulvicosta, and no connecting links be 

 found, I should be inclined to concede the distinctness of this form. 



This is one of those cases where it is much easier to see a difference 

 than to describe it. Dr. Packard, however, who described Vestalis, wrote 

 to me that he now considered his types to be only small specimens of 

 Fulvicosta. 



Mr. Smith advanced the opinion that this was the form given by 

 Walker as Conscita % instead of Fulvicosta as generally supposed ; but 

 as I regarded this as extremely improbable, I took a life-size photograph 

 of my specimen and sent it to Mr. A. G. Butler, who wrote : " The small 

 form is unknown to me, though I have seen an example of Euchcetes 

 collaris, under the name of vestalis." Mr. Smith also disagreed with me 

 in regard to my citing his name Lactata as a synonym of Conscita Walk., 

 and argued that Conscita ^ = Lactata Smith, Conscita $ var. b. = 

 Fulvicosta Clem, and Conscita ^ = Vestalis, and argued that such 

 confusion should mihtate against Walker's name being retained. 



• Mr. Walker's errors were no doubt great, especially his placing Con- 

 scita in a wrong genus ; but from what Mr. Butler wrote in reference to 

 the small Vestalis, I do not believe that Walker had that form before him 

 at all His only mistake, after the generic one, was in taking Fulvicosta, 

 which had already been described by Clemens, to be the % of Conscita, and 

 this, apart from the creation of a partial synonym, was not so very dreadful, 

 seeing that such a relationship would only imply a sexual variation similar to 

 that between the ^ and % oi LeucaJ'ctia Acrcea. I, therefore, maintain my 

 position as to the validity of Walker's name for this form, whether it be a 

 species or only a variety, and in this I am supported by Mr. Butler, who 

 wrote to me as follows : " There can be no question that if conscita is a 

 good species (which I do not believe it to be), the first and larger part of 

 Walker's description applies to it, and the mere fact of his referring the 

 wrong female to it will not invalidate that description any more than if 

 Walker had described the male only. Smith's name has not a leg to 

 stand on." Mr. Smith further urged that I was not consistent, and that 

 if his name Lactata fell before Conscita Walk., my name Con/usa would 



