THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



I 



Yet, somehow, the idea seems to be current that all my work; in 

 Agrotis at least, is based on genitalia characters only ! Mr. Dyar, in a 

 book notice, Can. Ent., XXVII., 225, says : " Under i\grotis the 

 genitalic divi^ions^ of Prof. Smith are given subgeneric value only, a pro- 

 ceeding which commends itself to the present reviewer." So Mr. Slinger- 

 land, on pp. 306 and 307 of the paper already cited, accepts this as a 

 correct statement, and voices a doubt as to the value of such a basis. I 

 was interested enough to write Mr. Slingerland on the subject, and he 

 frankly acknowledged in return : '' Yes ; I simply followed Grote and 

 Dyar in my statements regarding your divisions of the genus Agretis." 

 And Mr. Dyar, I have no doubt, simply followed Mr. Grote ! Now, I 

 would not be understood as questioning for a moment the divine right of 

 a critic to condemn without reading or understanding the work criticised, 

 or to impute views to suit himself; but I must confess that I am inclined 

 to have more regard for comments when the criticism indicates an under- 

 standing of the author's actual position. But perhaps this is merely a 

 prejudice on my part ! 



Yet it is something of a surprise that Mr. (}rote's statements concern- 

 ing my work or views should find unquestioned acceptance anywhere. 

 When any of my papers are under his consideration, condemnation is 

 nearly always certain, and Mr. Grote is always a much-abused individual. 

 If the facts do not bear out the desired conclusion, why so much the 

 worse for the facts. For instance, we find in the Can, Ent. for 1894, 

 Vol. XXVI., pp. 82 and 83, the following plaint : — " Prof. Smith goes 

 still further. He suppresses my reference of the species described by 

 Moeschler as islandica to opipara- in 1892, as cited above, and has the 

 courage to write, ' the error is Mr. Grote's for condemning Mr. Morrison's 

 species on insufficient grounds ! ' By also suppressing Moeschler's original 

 determination, I am brought in for a synonym I never committed ! " If 

 reference is made to my Revision of Agrotis, Bulletin No. 38, U. S. 

 Nat. Mus., p. 183, the following will be found : " Mr. Grote was correct 

 in referring opipara and islandica, Moeschl. (nee Stgr.), as synonymous. 

 The error is Moeschler's in failing to recognize the distinction between 

 the forms, and Mr. Grote's for so positively condemning Mr. Morrison's 

 species on insufficient grounds." How much now remains of Mr. Grote's 

 complaint? If the curious reader will take the trouble to look into the 



*The italics are mine. Note the plural. Mr, Grote uses all my divisions »s 

 subgenera. 



