THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 79 



Dear Sir, — 



In recording an article of mine on Jacob Hiibner and his works, pub- 

 lished in the Canadian Entomologist, the Editor of the Bibliographical 

 Record of Psyche criticizes the paper very briefly by saying that my article 

 proposed to " settle " the matter, but that I did not meet the principal 

 points of my opponents. My paper did not aim to settle the position of 

 Jacob Hiibner in entomological literature at all. That must be left to 

 time. What I tried to " settle," and hope I succeeded in doing, was that 

 Dr. Hagen and Mr. W. H. Edwards, in the last named author's criticisms, 

 had given the date of Ochsenheimer's volume incorrectly, had misrepre- 

 sented Ochsenheimer by introducing a full stop in the middle of one of 

 his sentences, and in appealing to Ochsenheimer as a rejection of the 

 Tentamen failed to improve their position, for Ochsenheimer adopted 

 genera from the Tentamen, such as Agrotis, etc. I think it quite clear 

 that, whatever be the ultimate fate of Hiibner's works, it will never do to 

 read him out of entomological literature on account of his alleged ill 

 success with the men of his time, or in such a manner as Mr. Edwards 

 has attempted, or by such erroneous statements. For one I should be 

 glad of a settlement in the matter, but it can never be arrived at in the 

 manner in which it has been attempted by Mr. Edwards and Mr. 

 Strecker. I have fully replied, I think, to their attack in my article afore- 

 said and in the preface to my Check List of N. Am. Noctuidae. 



But, in any case, I write now to object to the interjectional criticisms 

 in the Bibliographical Record of Psyche, rather than to re-open the matter 

 of Hiibner's Tentamen and Verzeichniss. It seems to me that such criti- 

 cisms are entirely out of place in a Bibliographical Record, and their 

 continuance will seriously impair its value and usefulness. One does not 

 look for criticisms in such a place, and, finding them, their impartiality 

 becomes at once suspected. In the present case the criticism is essen- 

 tially hasty and bad, but, if my friendly advice to avoid such matters in 

 future be taken, I think it will not prove entirely unfortunate for the pub- 

 lishers of Psyche. Respectfully, 



A. R. Grote, Buffalo, N. Y. 



Dear Sir, — 



As I did not have the opportunity to correct the proofs of last half of 

 my paper in March No., will you allow me to call attention here to some 



