I'riE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 297 



then, that Haworth's material came from the same sotirce as Stephens's. On 

 page 2 2 of liis article, Mr. Tutt tries to show that the specimen of stib- 

 gothica, Haw., of American writers, found by Mr. Barrett in the old 

 Burney collection, was not likely to have been obtained by Mr. Burney 

 in Haworth'.s time. However, Rev. R. A. Burney, who was born in 1775 

 and died in 1 836 (three years after Haworth's death), was an ardent collector 

 of insects for 30 years. His collection went to his son, Mr. H, Burney, 

 who continued to collect for over 30 years. It was the latter Burney who 

 died in 1893, but the specimen of siibgothica recently found by Mr. 

 Barrett (Ent. Month. Mag., XXV., 223) originally came, as he distinctly 

 states, from the collection of the elder Burney, who ivas a contemporary 

 with — and could have and did, Mr. Barrett says, correspond with — 

 Haworth. In regard to the Burney collection, one of England's most 

 noted lepidopterists writes me : " To call his collection a ' scientific lie ' 

 is worthy of the person who wrote it. The vast majority of his insects 

 were genuine enough. A few of doubtful nativity were in the collection, 

 but he had removed the most glaring species which had been imposed 

 upon him, and, I think, destroyed some of them." 



The above facts show that there could have been and that there was 

 at least one (Haworth himself states he had seen his species in three 

 museums or collections) — Burney's — specimen of the siibgothica of 

 American writers in English collections in Haworth's time ; as Mr. 

 Raddon collected before 1810, Stephens's specimen might also have been 

 one of those seen by Haworth. In the light of the above facts, and 

 especially in connection with what is to follow, it would seem that Mr. 

 Tutt's sarcastic remarks in the closing sentence on page 22 and in the 

 first sentence on page 23 (Can. Ent., XXVIII. ), might equally as well be 

 applied to his own arguments in this discussion ; but sarcasm is not 

 science nor logic. 



I consider myself fortunate in being able to draw most of my 

 information from English sources, for I thus escape Mr. Tutt's allegation 

 that no American entomologist had or has the slightest knowledge of the 

 British Noctuids. As a final argument in support of my claim that 

 Haworth's siibgothica is an American insect and not a variety of the 

 European tritici, I have to offer a British picture, shown in the lower half 

 of the plate. This photograph was taken by Mr. Gepp, in the British 

 Museum, tinder the direction of Mr. A. G. Butler and Mr. C. O. Water- 

 house. It purports to be a likeness (twice natural size) of Haworth's 



