24 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



same species the abdomina are singularly unlike. Indeed, Mr. Slinger- 

 land's references to the figures seem remarkably unhappy, for if Wood's 

 figure is one of the best figures of the American insect ever published, it 

 is singularly unlike the figure from nature above it, and to suppose that 

 Wood's figure (ib) and Stephens's (la) are from the same specimen seems 

 to suggest great incapacity on the part of one of the artists to reproduce 

 what he saw. Figs, i and id represent nothing British, but for the 

 remainder there is nothing to add. 



I would now draw Mr. Slingerland's attention to an important fact 

 that he has altogether overlooked, viz., the connection between Doubleday 

 and Guenee. It is a matter of history that almost all the N. American 

 species Guenee possessed were obtained from Doubleday and Desvignes, 

 and that most of his work was submitted to Doubleday before publica- 

 tion. It was, therefore, with Doubleday's full knowledge that jaculifera 

 was described, and I observe that Guene'e in his Histoire, etc. ( Noctue- 

 lites), Vol. v., p. 262, actually described h\?, Jaculifera, var. B., from speci- 

 mens in Doubleday's collection. It is quite evident that with the mutual 

 understanding between Doubleday and Guenee, that Doubleday agreed 

 with Guenee's nomenclature of the American species in 1852, and equally 

 certain, in the face of what he had written in 1847, that he considered the 

 species quite distinct from subgothica, Haw. 



Mr. Slingerland, in his quotation of my note that "I do not know the 

 American subgothica^' rather misstates my present position. I have 

 examined all the specimens in the British museum repeatedly since 1891, 

 and know well what I am talking about, and his suggestion that I am an 

 " English writer, who does not know the American insect," is rather 

 startling and far-fetched, and would have been more warranted had Mr. 

 Slingerland written his article five years ago. 



One other point only interests me in the note, and in that I am 

 pleased to be able to agree with Mr. Slingerland. There is no doubt 

 Guenee's name, jaculifera, refers to the insect known as such, that his 

 var. B. must be called tricosa, Lintner, and that his var. B. = herilis, Grote. 

 It may be interesting as bearing out Mr. Slingerland's position that 

 Guenee probably had no specimens of jaculifera, but that he described 

 Desvignes and Doubleday's .specimens; that these Entomologists must have 

 had several specimens is pretty evident, for Guene'e writes {Ibid., p. 262): 

 "Amerique Septentrionale ; Canada Coll. Div. Parait tres-commune ; 

 whilst of var. B. he specially notes : " Etat de New-Yorck, Coll., Dbday." 



I have tried to be explicit even at the risk of offending our Editor by 

 being too verbose. I am afraid even now that I may have to explain 

 doubtful points. At any rate I trust I have been logical enough to con- 

 vince my two good friends, Prof. Grote and Prof. Smith, that on the score 

 of " scientific truth," as well as on the score of " expediency," it is not 

 well that two distinct species should be known in Europe and America by 

 the same name, and that the true name henceforth for the American 

 species — much as I detest upsetting old associations — must be Agrotis 

 jaculifera, Gn, 



