82 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



than is Arctia or Liparis, or Orthosia, or Xylina, which appear to be 

 perhaps the families nearest to Acronycta in different directions " (Entom. 

 Record, Vol. III., p. 249). 



Dr. Chapman then gives (Ibid. pp. 249-251) a most exact and 

 scientific description of the egg, the newly-hatched larva, and the larva 

 after each change of skin, of D. coryli^ annotating his description 

 throughout by comparison with the Liparidce (or Lymantriidce, as it 

 appears to be called by American lepidopterists). 



After thus exhaustively dealing with the structure of Demas in its 

 various stages, Dr. Chapman concludes : — " The larva of D. coryli is 

 clearly a Liparid, not, therefore, perhaps so very remote from Acronycta, 

 but, still, distinctly a Bombyx (if that name still has a definite collective 

 meaning) and not a Noctua. The pupa of D. coryli is not that of a 

 NocTUA, though the character of the anal armature has some resem- 

 blance to various Noctua forms " (Entom. Record, Vol, IV., p. 97). 

 The larva is excellently drawn and figured in the same volume of the 

 magazine (PI. ix.. Fig. 2), where the newly-hatched larva is shown x 20 

 diams., and compared with the Acronyctids, with which it has been sug- 

 gested to have certain affinities. The pupa is also figured in the same 

 plate (Fig. 5, pupa of D. coryli, nat. size; Fig. 5a, pupa oi D. coryli, 

 showing dorsal view of armature ; Fig. 5b, pupa, showing ventral view ; 

 Fig. 5c, pupa, showing lateral view ; — the three latter x 15 diams. 



It is clear that neither Prof Smith nor Mr. Dyar have ever seen 

 these excellent papers by Dr. Chapman. It is equally clear that it 

 should be the business of every lepidopterist of repute to do so. One of 

 the greatest complaints that I have to offer against critical writers on 

 American lepidopterology is their general ignorance of British work. 

 Surely the Tratisactions of our leading Entomological Societies and the 

 leading magazines should be a part of every entomologist's monthly or 

 quarterly pabulum. If they were, one would have to complain less of 

 misunderstanding due to a want of knowledge of all the facts bearing on 

 the case. 



I trust if Mr. Dyar or Prof. Smith should be inclined to challenge 

 the above facts, they will read Dr. Chapman's articles first. The above 

 are necessarily brief excerpts, and the whole bearing of Dr. Chapman's 

 position can only be understood by reading his complete essays. 



