94 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



The result of the author's critical stud}' of the specimens thus accu- 

 mulated, has been the rectification of the synonymy of a large number of 

 species, the characterization of one new genus, Eulepistc. and the descrip- 

 tion of twenty-four new species, some of which had Ijeen confounded with 

 others previously described. 



Clemens' genus A)iapJiora is recjuired to give place to the earlier gen- 

 eric name AerolopJiiis of Poey, to which W'alker's genera Zaruma, Uhara 

 and Naharra, and Hiibner's P'niaris are all nearly allied forms. One 

 new species, A. siinu/atns, Wlsm., is described. Lord Walsingham 

 acknowledges special indebtedness to Mr. Chambers' " Index " and 

 descriptive work, but in his study of the species before him thinks it 

 advisable to discard one or two of the latter's genera, such as Harpa/yce, 

 Dry ope, etc., and identifies a considerable number of his species with 

 those of Ur. Clemens and various European authors whose descriptions 

 antedated his. 



Concerning some of these eliminations, I am permitted to quote from 

 a letter recently received from Mr. Chambers. With the prefatory remark 

 that " Entomologists, hke doctors," will differ " sometimes, and while in 

 the main concurring in his Lordship's opinions, as expressed in the 

 pamphlet under consideration, 1 feel bound to dissent from a few of his 

 conclusions — a few only- — though his more recent familiarity with the 

 species entitles his opinion to much greater weight than mine," Mr. Cham- 

 bers refers to the species as follows : — 



" If my Tinea ccemetariceella is Clemens' Eudarcia simulatricella, I 

 see no raison de etre for the genus Eudarcia. I find no greater differences 

 between the neuration of cxmetariceella and other undoubted Tinea, than 

 there are among the latter themselves. 



" Lord Walsingham remarks that the specimen of Depressaria applana, 

 Fabr., in Prof Eernald's collection, is labelled Gelechia Cleinensella, Cham., 

 salicifungiella, CI., but I don't think it was so labelled by me. Lord W. 

 is mistaken in saying that it is omitted in my ' Index ' (though the refer- 

 ence is incorrectly to vol. 9, Can. Ent., instead of to vol. 8), and I say 

 that it appears in some respects to resemble salici/ungieila. 



" I still think my genus Harpalyce distinct from Cryptolechia, and in 

 a letter to Lord Walsingham I have stated some of my reasons for this 

 opinion." 



Mr. Chambers is not i)repared tt) agree with I-ord W\alsingham that his 

 Gelechia prunifoliella is identical with his JVuetusa plutella , nor that 



