THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 301 



A REPLY TO PROF. SMITH. 



BY A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, A. M., HILDESHEIM, GERMANY. 



With regard to Mamestra conns, the whole question as to the setting 

 of the type has been introduced by Prof. Smith, and I submit that this has 

 nothing to do with the matter. I have merely shown that Prof. Smith's 

 statement that the type of coinis was " typical olivacea, but so set as to 

 make it appear differently marked," etc., is inaccurate and impossible, as 

 ray description refers to colour and marking, and these cannot be pro- 

 duced by any freak of setting. As I failed to notice any peculiarity of 

 setting in my type, it is probably not very obvious, and as now described 

 by Dr. Smith, must be very slight. I call further attention to the fact 

 that in colour and marking the description oi circumcincta agrees well with 

 mine of comis. I believe, therefore, it possible that circumcincta is coinis. 

 I do not assert it — I have not seen the type of comis since the seventies 

 — -but I think it possible, nay, probable. Mr. Beutenmiiller writes me that 

 the type of comis differs more from " typical olivacea " than the type of 

 circumcincta does. I want these types examined by some competent 

 person who can settle the matter as to whether comis is a variety of 

 olivacea or not, and what the standing of circumcincta really is as com- 

 pared with either. That comis is not " typical olivacea " seems now 

 virtually admitted by Dr. Smith, and this is in reality all my contention, and 

 that no amount of abnormal setting can produce differences in colour and 

 marking. This closes my case as to Mamestra comis. 



Now, as to the type of Agronoma, which is crassa. \i crassa agrees 

 with the type of Porosagrotis I am glad to hear it, and we shall get a little 

 more light into the matter. The reason I wrote that the front was rough- 

 ened and tuberculate was that I felt it with a pin's point. My microscope 

 I left behind in America, and there is none in the museum here. I could 

 not distinguish, with the pin, between tuberculate and roughened. Crassa 

 does not belong to Carueades, because the antennae are pectinate, and in 

 my opinion the structure of the antenna? offers points of generic value. 

 I have therefore not been able to compare Feltia and Agronoma as closely 

 as I should have liked ; first, because I had no species of the former \ 

 secondly, no microscope. But the work of bringing the groups of North 

 American Agrotis into correspondence with the European progresses, 

 nevertheless, as we see. That Feltia should not be represented in Europe 

 seems not likely, since Haworth's name subgothica is held by Mr. Tutt to 

 represent a variety of tritici, by Dr. Fitch to be jaculifera. In a little 



