THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 1 95 



that these insects are specifically distinct one from the other. In the 

 meantime it is surprising that Mr. Lyman, above everybody else, should 

 countenance a question whether these insects are so distinct, for such a 

 question implies a suspicion that that eminent entomo/ogisi, Dr. Ri/ey, 

 confused two or more species of moths. 



Itrequiresconsiderablecourage andself-confidence for a man to assume 

 the role of general critic and censor, and a critic should be careful not to 

 misrepresent those whom he attacks. Where is the relevancy, or the 

 correctness, of Mr. Lyman's statement that I overlooked the fact of the 

 priority of the name punctatissima over that of textor, seeing that, on 

 page 369 in the December number of the Canadian Entomologist, I 

 arranged the Hyphantrians thus : 



Hyphantria, Harris. 



Punctatissima, S. & A. 

 textor, Harris ? 



Again, on page 128 he says, speaking of myself, " He is wrong in 

 implying that Dr. Ottolengui doubted the identity of cunea, Drury, and" 

 pufictatissi?na, A. & S." I implied nothing of the sort. 



He continues, " What Dr. Ottolengui expressed a doubt about was 

 whether textor, Harris, and punctatissima, A. & S., were the same." Is 

 not that what I said ? My words were, " By these forms I understand 

 him to mean punctatissima and textor." Mr. Lyman failed to perceive 

 that I was showing the weakness of Riley's theory in two particulars, 

 testing the chain at two points. 



It is usually understood that Riley was his own artist (and a very 

 good artist too ! ). Whether he drew the figures 86 and 87, of which so 

 much has been said, does not appear ; but in the figures there are no lines 

 of dimensions, in the letterpress there is no word as to enlargement or 

 inaccuracy. We must therefore conclude that the figures are what Riley 

 intended them to be. Yet Mr. Lyman speaks of the dimensions of Fig. 

 86 as •' absurd," and alludes to inaccuracies in the wing-series. /;/ fact, 

 I have to thank hi7n for fully sustaining my second contention, for if, as he 

 says, Riley's series of wing-figures were merely intended to show the 

 range of variations of a variable species, how can they be regarded as '•' a 

 proof amounting to a demonstration " \.\\dX cunea, Drury ; congrua, Walker ; 

 textor, Harris ; punctatissima, S. & A., etc., etc., are one and the same 

 species ? 



