4 



THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



CONCERNING FELTIA, AND OTHER MATTERS. 



BY JOHN B. SMITH, SC. D. 



The question asked by Mr. Slingerland in his very interesting paper 

 in the Can. Ent., XXVII. , p. 301, is in great part answered by himself. 

 I think he shows very conclusively that subgothica, 'i^z.w., is correctly 

 used for our American species, and has given us a very full statement of 

 the evidence upon which he bases his conclusions, thus removing the 

 matter from the domain of unsupported opinion. From the nature of the 

 case, and in tlie absence of Haworth's actual type specimen, the proof 

 cannot be absolute ; but until something more definite is sup[)lied, I think 

 the conclusions of the paper on the identity of subgothica, must be 

 accepted. As to the synonymy, I think Mr. Slingerland is also correct. 

 I have not found the A. O. U. Code clear on this matter, though it is as 

 to genera in the same case ; but, after consulting Dr. C. Hart Merriam, 

 a recognized authority on questions of nomenclature, I am assured that 

 Guene'e's \\2l\-c\^ jaculifera must sink as a synonym. On this, the main 

 features of the ])aper, I accept all of Mr. Slingerland's conclusions ; but 1 

 was a little surprised to find him defending genitalic characters as possibly 

 good for generic divisions, in the apparent belief that I had used these 

 characters as a basis for my division of the mass of species I found lumped 

 as Agrotis I I believe that, with the possible exception of Mr. Scudder, 

 no one in America has studied the genitalia of more insects of all orders 

 than I, Certainly no one has figured more, and no one has insisted more 

 strongly upon the value of these characters for specific distinction. I have 

 examined in some cases over one hundred specimens of a single species 

 without discovering appreciable variation, and while I was engaged in the 

 study of Lachfiosterna I examined nearly 2,000 specimens of the fiisca 

 group alone, for the.se characters. Yet, while insisting on their specific 

 value, I have also pointed out that while easily distinguished species often 

 have very similar genitalic structures, very closely allied species — super- 

 ficially — may have them utterly unlike. Nowhere have I ever claimed 

 that genitalic characters afford good bases for genera ; on the contrary, I 

 am distinctly of the opinion that they should not be used except in very 

 special cases. The only instance where I have yet found it desirable to 

 make use of them as a sole character, is in the series of species which I 

 \i2iS<t cdX\^6. Po7-osagrotis. That is an expediency genus, and stated, as 

 such, with the reasons for it. 



