126 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



If these sentences do not imply that Dr. Riley confused two or three 

 species of moths, I cannot see that they imply anything. 



Following Dr. Fyles's paper, appeared in the June Canadian 

 Entomologist a paper by Dr. Dyar in which he admitted that Dr. Fyles 

 was probably right in identifying antigone, vStrecker, with congrua, 

 Walker, but he stumbled in regard to Dr. Fyles's meaning about cunea, 

 understanding it as equivalent to punctatissima. 



In the July number, Dr. Smith dwelt on the probability of Mr. 

 Walker having before him three banded specimens of punctatissima, and 

 the improbability of his having three banded antigone from Georgia, and 

 these arguments are of considerable weight, though naturally not con- 

 clusive, and, indeed, not intended to be so by the author. 



To the September number, Mr. Grote contributed a page on this 

 controversy, without adding any information of value, but showing 

 that he has apparently forgotten that there were two species under the 

 name congrua in 1867, the third specimen (c) being S. virginica $ 

 according to G. & R. 



In the December number there were no less than two papers upon 

 this controversy. The first, by Dr. Ottolengui, affords some interesting 

 information in regard to the distribution of S. antigone and also as to much- 

 spotted specimens of punctatissima occurring in the spring brood in the 

 South, but it would appear that he also stumbled in regard to supposing 

 that Dr. Fyles meant punctatissima by the name cunea. 



Dr. Ottolengui's theory in regard to the type of pattern in all species 

 is ingenious and there may be some truth in it, but his illustration of it in 

 the case of antigone is of no weight at all, as the dot or spot "at the 

 second fork of the median nerve " as described by Dr. Fyles is not 

 confined to S. antigone, but also occurs in S. virginica, S. vestalis, 

 H. punctatissima, and Leucarctia acrea. 



Again, in saying that this spot " is not a constant feature of Prof. 

 Riley's series (Forest Insects, p. 246, fig. 87), if, indeed, it occurs at all 

 exactly as it does in congrua,^'' he is laying altogether too much stress on 

 the supposed infallibility of the artist. No artist is infallible, and slight 

 errors can be detected in almost every figure not taken by photography. 



As to his aberrant specimens from Summerville, S. C., I sincerely 



hope he will not erect a new species in so variable a genus on such 



slender material, as I have a (J S. virginica taken i?i coitu with a normal 



9 which varies in a somewhat similar manner, the outer third of costa 



