THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 179 



information from Mr. Moschler, unites A. quenselii Geyer and A. gclida 

 Moschler, cited separate in our " List." This correction, coming from 

 the author of the synonym, is doubtless of value, but we have no 

 responsibility in the matter nor did we " fall into any error." If Mr. 

 Strecker will refer to the two names in the List, he will find them followed 

 by a dash ( — ), and from our preface he may gather the information that 

 this dash indicates that we do not know the species and are not to be 

 held accountable for their value. Next, Mr. Strecker (undoubtedly on 

 the strength of Mr. Moschler's letters) says we fell into the same error 

 with regard to Ardia parthcnos Harris, and Arctia borcalis Moschler. Mr. 

 Strecker should have read my statement that the two were probably 

 identical, published in the Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., pp. 74 and 537 (1864). 

 The species were, however, described as distinct by Professor Packard 

 and the names are kept separate on this authority in the List ; borealis 

 being followed by a dash, since we do not know it as distinct from par- 

 Ihcnos. At the time of describing borcalis, Mr. Moschler did not know 

 that Harris had described an allied species, nor in describing spcciosa, that 

 Kirby had described virguncula, since he does not allude to them ; but 

 perhaps, after all, the species described by Moschler from Labrador, may 

 be distinct ; at least it is yet an open question whether they are so or net. 

 Where is our " error," then, with respect to these species of Arctia ? 



With only partial quotation of our remarks, Mr. Strecker unites our 

 luteola from Quebec with cordigcra from Lapland. We had only mystitti 

 in nature for comparison, and judged of cordigcra by description when we 

 described luteola. That we judged the American to be a near ally of the 

 European species is evident from our remark that it "appears to represent 

 the European cordigcra in our fauna." Now, that Mr. Strecker has 

 received from Europe specimens of cordigcra and compared them with 

 luteola, and finds no difference, it becomes probable that they are the same 

 species. This information is very interesting in a distributional point of 

 view. 



To conclude this notice I will draw attention to Mr. Strecker's 

 repeated remarks that " great confusion exists with regard to the species 

 of Catocala." These are not true of the most prominent collections of 

 that genus. There is but little uncertainty about our species, and that 

 with regard to the limits of a very few of them. I have determined 

 during the last ten years nearly all material in this genus, sent to me 

 from Canada, to Georgia, and all of Mr. Strecker's determinations have 



