84 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



median vein straight, and the fork at the hind margin wanting. You will 

 see in Osten Sacken's Catalogue that the museums do not possess this type 

 for CecidoDiyia. I have gone through the literature, and find till now your 

 species is not described. The larva is shrivelled up, therefore the trophi 

 are not visible. 



" \'our other insect is Psylla veiiusta, O. Sacken, raised by him, and 

 described with its galls on Ccltis occidenialis. — Fettiner Entom. Zeit., 1861, 

 p. 422." 



With regard to tlie J\v//a, Mr. Fletcher's note in the February num- 

 ber reminds me that I ought to have mentioned that 1 found Celtis occi- 

 denta/is at Como, in \'audreuil Co., in the grounds of Mr. I. J. Gibb, with 

 whom 1 spent some time last year. 1 have not met with the tree at 

 Cowans ville. 



In Mr. Ashmead's list of described Psyllidaj, on page 222, vol. xiii., 

 there is no Celtiiiis-mamina. And the doubt remains whether the Celtidis- 

 ijuxmina of Prof. Riley is not the insect previously described by Osten 

 Sacken under the name ve/iiista. Professor Riley seems satisfied that they 

 are distinct species ; and it would be pleasing if we could regard him as 

 infallible. 



Where does the Professor obtain the word CeltiiUs ? The generic 

 term Ce/tis is ul)tained from the name of the African lote-tree, mentioned 

 by Pliny, H. N. xiii., 17 in § 32: "Africa arborem loton gignit quam 

 vocant celtin et ipsam Italiae famiHarem." Celthi indicates Celtis as the 

 genitive, and not Celt'uiis. 



MR. JOHN B. SMrrH'S PAPER ON N. AM. HELIOTHIN.^i. 



BY A. R. GROTE, A. M. 



For my part. 1 am very glad that a i)late of tibial structure has at last 

 been published, and by Mr. Smith. It illustrates characters upon which I 

 have long insisted, and is a valuable addition to the present " Synopsis." 

 The second plate might well have been omitted; it hardly assists the 

 student, and is badly drawn. The " Synopsis " itself is a gratification to 

 me ,; it is scientifically written so far as the characters it discusses 

 are concerned. Its difterence from my own work in its conclusions 

 are more appareiU than real. Mr. Smith writes with a critical 

 eye to my shortcomings, and really finds very little to say. 



