%llt faiiiulinii Jntaniolo^bt. 



Vol. XXVIII. LONDON, DECEMBER, 1896. No. 12. 



THE AGROTIS SUBGOTHICA OF HAWORTH, AGAIN. 



BY M. V. SLINGERLA.ND, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, N. Y. 



In the Can. Ent. for November, 1S95 (Vol. XXVII., 301-307), I 

 discussed all the evidence then accessible to me in regard to the identity of 

 this insect. According to Prof J. B. Smith, our American authority on 

 American Noctuids, I showed " very conclusively that subgothica, Haw., 

 is correctly used for our American species" (Can. Ent., XXVIII., 4). 

 However, Mr. J. W. Tutt, who has written much about British Noctuids, 

 in an opinionated reply (Can. Ent., XXVIII., 17), tries to prove that 

 Haworth described a variety of tritici, a well-known European (not an 

 American) insect. After a careful study of several authentic specimens 

 of tritici, representing nearly as many varieties, from Dr. Staudinger, and 

 after considerable correspondence with both English and American lepi- 

 dopterists who are familiar with tritici, I became convinced that the 

 species, in any of its numerous variations, never approaches near enough 

 to what Americans have called sicbgothica, Haw., to be easily mistaken 

 for the latter ; their antennae are quite different structurally. But Mr. Tutt 

 states : " I can match exactly the specimens which Stephens figures, and 

 Humphrey and Westwood copy, with undoubted genuine specimens of 

 Agrotis tritici." Naturally, I was anxious to see one of these specimens, 

 and, under the circumstances, I anticipated that a request to examine one 

 of them would be readily granted. My first polite request remaining 

 unanswered, I wrote a second time, but, as yet, Mr. Tutt has not even 

 replied to either request. The above facts, and especially those which 

 follow, I think demand that Mr. Tutt publish a photographic illustration 

 of one of these specimens of tritici var. that it may be compared with 

 the figures on my plate in Can. Ent. for November, 1895, and especially 

 with the two on the plate accompanying this article. 



The following extracts from an interesting and valuable letter, written 

 in response to several of my queries, by one of England's most respected 

 lepidopterists, will throw much light on some obscure points and straighten 

 out some of Mr. Tutt's misconceptions : "Stephens's and Wood's figures 



