THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 2o 



For a scientific man, Mr. Slingerland must be easily satisfied ; but I 

 would urge ag'ain that guesswork is not science. I maintain that 

 Haworth's description of siihgothica refers word for word to a certain 

 form of Agrotis tritici. I maintain that Mr. Slingerland has not brought 

 forward one scintilla of evidence to up.set Haworth's statement that his 

 species has its " habitat in Anglia ; I maintain that Mr. Slingerland has 

 not brought forward the ghost of a fact to assume that subgothica, Haw., 

 is or is not even identical with subgothica, Steph. 



With regard to the latter, I must assume that Mr. Slingerland has 

 had at least as much experience with the various forms of Agrotis 

 jaculifera as I have had with those of Agrotis tritici, and, therefore, that 

 his opinion is as good as mine ; but I still maintain mine, he will maintain 

 his. 



Now we come to a matter of e.xpediency. Is it worth while to per- 

 petuate a name about which so much doubt e.xists? Suppose Mr. Sling- 

 erland and myself let our difference die a natural death, the same duel 

 will be fought again and again between our successors, who will view 

 the matter from our respective standpoints. 



Now, about Guene'e's figure (id) there can be no doubt. It does not 

 represent any possible form of Agrotis tritici. Here, then, is the first 

 unquestioned figure of the American insect. It is the only reasonable 

 name to apply to it, but that is a matter for Mr. Grote and Prof. Smith, 

 and not for me. I simply state facts. Agrotis tritici, var. subgothica, 

 Haw., is a living fact to me, so is Agrotis jaculifera, Gn. For my part I 

 shall continue to write : — 



Agrotis tritici, Linn. 



ab. subgothica, Haw. 



2. Agrotis jaculifera, Gn. 



And Mr. Slingerland can add, if he chooses, to the latter (? sub- 

 gothica, St.). This is what facts warrant, and when we change facts for 

 opinion we are doing a sorry thing for science. 



Mr. Slingerland says, p. 303 : " This figure, which is reproduced as 



lb on the plate [it is enlarged to natural size], is from Wood's Index 



Eiitomologicus, pi. 9, fig. 149 (1S39). AH must admit thai it is one of the 

 ■best figures of our American species ever published." I have compared it 

 carefully with the figure from nature, and mark the differences : Wood's 

 figure (lb) may be the best of the figures of the American species ever 

 published, but it represents equally well many specimens of ./. tritici in 

 my cabinet, and the question arises how far we are justified in considering 

 these as two distinct species at all ; whilst for two male specimens of the 



