240 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



tuberculate," and this at once made it more than reasonably doubtful 

 whether his conclusion, " It is therefore a Feliia" was justified ; because 

 in Feltia the front is not tuberculate ; it is roughened and protuberant 

 only. A tuberculate front is the chief characteristic of Mr. Grote's genus 

 Carneades and of my genus Porosagrotis. It became necessary, therefore, 

 for me to examine specimens of crassa, and this again presented evidence 

 of Mr. Grote's failure to make strictly accurate, scientific statements. The 

 structure of crassa, with the exception of the pectinated antenna, is exactly 

 the same as that of his genus Carneades, and it adds force to what I 

 previously said, that Mr. Grote did not recognize the extent of his own 

 genus when he described it. The pectinations of the antennae in this 

 group are not of generic value. Feltia contains some species that have 

 antennie pectinated, and some that have them serrated. Both Porosa- 

 grotis and Carneades contain species ranging in the same way, with either 

 pectinated or serrated antennae ; but the essential point, the tuberculate 

 clypeus or front is characteristic of Mr. Grote's genus Carneades, and this 

 is exactly what he failed to recognize in the European species crassa. 

 My genus Porosagrotis is the only one ever described by me which is 

 based on genitalic characters. In Carneades the clasper is forked, or 

 consists of two prongs. In Porosagrotis the clasper is single. Now, in 

 crassa we have exactly the same structure that we find in Porosagrotis, 

 and the species is rather closely allied in general appearance to what I 

 have described as dcedalus, and also to Mr. Grote's species, texana. If 

 crassa is the type of Agrono?na, Agronoma must replace Porosagrotis. 

 If Porosagrotis is not a good genus, because based on genitalic characters, 

 Mr. Grote's Carneades must sink in favour of Hiibner's Agronoma. It 

 does not make very much difference to me which conclusion is adopted. 

 Mr. Grote expresses himself as much obliged to me for showing the 

 necessity of changing the type of Hiibner's genus. I am equally obliged 

 to him for giving me another opportunity to show how little his statements 

 as to structural characters can be trusted. 



There is another point that may be mentioned here. Mr. Grote has 

 several times referred to Mamestra comis, and has questioned the 

 correctness of my reference of this form to oUvacea. Most recently he 

 questions the correctness of my identification of the type, and from 

 descriptions refers circnmcincta as the same as comis. I called attention, 

 in speaking of comis, to the fact that the insect was peculiarly set and 

 that it was a remarkably pretty specimen, and I may add that the 



