THK CANADIAN KN rOMOT.nrjIS'l'. 85 



He (luotes at some lengtli a former statement of mine as to 

 the spinose tibiae (made ten years ago), wliicli I at once cor- 

 rected on examining again the small insect under a larger lens. Eut he 

 excuses other modern writers with worse mistakes to father. In stating 

 the case fairly, he should have said that although Mr. Grote has been the 

 first American to insist on the natural ( haracters of spinose tibiae, yet once 

 he called the tibia; unarmed, where they were really spinose, but he 

 promptly corrected tlie mistake. Mr. Smith calls my citing RhoJodipsa 

 volupia hardly ''honest," while he suppresses the fact that I twice described 

 the moth as probably Fitch's species, but Fitch's description, as 1 ex- 

 plained,. will not tit my insect (figured in Illustrated Essay). In my list I 

 only did to this one what LeConte did throughout, viz., cite the authority 

 for the combined teniis. 1 differ from Mr. Smith as to the generic char- 

 acters, and 1 desired to show that no new specific name was necessary, 

 even if my species was not Fitch's. With regard to the species, there is 

 little variance with regard to their validity. The synonymy is mainly that 

 of my Lists. 1 do not believe that persimilis is the same as villosa; at 

 the same time 1 readily admit \\\A.\.balha and acutilinea maybe color forms 

 of separata. Speyer considers, as I do, that a/iguhita is distinct from 

 umbra ( = exprimeus). Mr. Hy. Edwards informed me long ago that 

 sueta and Californiensis were varieties. The statement made by Mr. 

 Smith that 1 resurrected Trlgouop/iora from Hubner, is incorrect. I took 

 the genus from Lederer and Staudinger. I cannot understand why it is 

 that Schinia Hubn, which 1 did " resurrect," is made to supercede my 

 genera ,; but 1 scarcely think that any one will call all the species ^^ Schinia" 

 that Mr. Smith puts under that genus. I can assure Mr. Smith that my 

 little limbalis is not related to Mr. Edwards' constrida. From a small 

 unset specimen I established the genus Epinydis, without knowing of Mr. 

 Hulst's description of the moth as inagdalena. The two, as Mr. Hy. 

 Edwards has told me, are the same. My specimen was very poor, and I 

 have it no longer to again go over its characters, which are, 1 believe, 

 correctly given by me. The collections I have determined will allow of 

 every certainty as to my species, but I hope that my labels will be 

 respected and not changed, as it is probable that Mr. Smith's work will 

 be modified. It is interesting as the first attempt to review from a 

 scientific standpoint the material brought together by myself, and which 

 there was frequently no opportunity to compare at the time of the 

 original description of the species and genera. 



