THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 21 



and goes on with a statement that is utterly damaging to " the gentle- 

 man's " veracity, or as to his consummate carelessness ; but still the 

 unexplained factor remains, viz., that forms of A. fritici identical with 

 that figured by Stephens are in many British collections, that the locality 

 given by Raddon is a bona fide one for A. tritici, and that at a time when 

 there were fewer collectors and few specimens the form figured may not 

 have been well known to Mr. Doubleday. 



Now, let us grant for a moment that the variation of A. tritici and 

 A. jaculifera, Gn., is so closely parallel; nay, so identical, that two 

 specialists at this group, as T suppose Mr. Slingerland and myself to be, 

 cannot see any difference in certain figures claimed for both species — in 

 other words, that what I have no hesitation in referring to A. tritici, he 

 has no hesitation in referring to A. Jaculifera. What bearing, I would 

 ask, has that on Haworth's description ? Haworth was dead, and his 

 work was published years before, and he could have had none of Raddon's 

 specimens. He described, evidently, from perfectly different specimens 

 from those used by Stephens. Therefore, even if Raddon fraudulently 

 deceived Stephens, it is clear that he did not deceive Flaworth, and until 

 Mr. Slingerland can show some more definite facts relative to Haworth's 

 siibgothica, he must excuse us if we refuse to change an opinion held by 

 successive generations of British entomologists, viz., that subgothica. 

 Haw., is what Haworth described it as, and verily believed it to be, a British 

 and not an American species, and which no one supposed it to be until 

 Dr. Fitch's introduction of the name in America, for, be it observed, the 

 doubt thrown by Doubleday was not on stibgothica, Haw., but subgothica, 

 Stephens. Mr. Slingerland now touches upon what he evidently con- 

 siders the clinching part of his argument. He asks : " Is Haworth's 

 stibgothica the same as Stephens's. Probably Haworth's single type 

 specimen could not now be found, if it exists at all." Mr. Slingerland 

 can take the latter for ganted. Haworth's type specimen would have 

 been found years ago were it findable. That being so, we are told we 

 must " depend on the original description and a little circumstantial 

 evidence to settle this point." I have before stated that Doubleday and 

 all British authors for almost a century have known perfectly well that 

 Haworth's description refers to a well-known form of Agrotis tritici, and 

 the evidence is in favour of this view, but the " circumstantial evidence " 

 must be examined carefully. Mr. Slingerland says that " Haworth's 

 specimen might easily be one which Mr. Barrett recently found in an ol4 



