94 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



1. I have had no help whatever from Dr. Dyar in the preparation of 

 my book, or in that of my thesis^ except in the one instance regarding the 

 latter, acknowledged below. 



2. As for Mr. Coquillett, if Dr. Dyar intends to say that that gentle- 

 man wrote or dictated any portion of my book, Dr. Dyar is stating what 

 he knows to be an absolute untruth. The book was written at my home 

 in New Jersey, and Mr. Coquillett never saw it until I had everything 

 settled with the publishers. If I have not given sufficient credit to any 

 one, it is to Dr. H. A. Morgan, who, when I asked him exactly what part 

 he had taken in the work at Baton Rouge before I came, answered, with 

 his characteristic modesty, that he would prefer to remain unmentioned 

 rather than risk detracting in any way from the credit due Dr.' Dupree. In 

 fact, one of the readers of the manuscript remarked that I gave more credit 

 than necessary. 



3. If my book "reads like a second edition of Dr. Howard's," the lat- 

 ter would have to be entirely rewritten and largely extended. At present,' 

 beyond treating of the same general subject, I fail to see any comparison 

 in plan, style or text. In fact, I purposely passed lightly over some sub- 

 jects, such as the experiments in Cuba, because they were fully enough 

 treated in Dr. Howard's book, and said so (Mosquito Life, p. 105). I 

 have certainly credited him wherever I quote him and have referred to his 

 book as "admirable." I found no necessity for quoting any biological notes 

 from Dr. Dyar, though I have quoted Mr. Knab. 1 do not agree with Dr. 

 Dyar's systematic work, and devised my keys after my own plan. I adhere 

 to Mr. Coquillett's classification because I preferred to adopt one that is 

 sane, scientific and likely to remain permanent 



4. I treated of the biology of all United States species so far as known 

 up to the time of my receiving galley proof. 



Other species whose habits were unknown, I mentioned by name and 

 distribution. The western species are mostly thus treated ; naturally, this 

 was unavoidable. Species founded on larvae only, I purposely omitted. 



5. There a7'e no descriptions of larvae in the text. There are a few 

 general references to superficial appearances, from which alone it would be 

 absolutely impossible to identify the larva vvith certainty. These references 

 may correspond to Dr. Dyar's idea of a proper description, although they 

 are, as should be plain to the reader, not so intended. Possibly he refers 

 to the keys. I submit here my "description" of ////>;/5, the common 

 house moscjuito, as an example, for comparison with that which he gives of 

 the same si)ecies in his article on Culicid larvae as independent organisms 

 (Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc, Dec, 1906, p. 206). To ensure entire comparison, 

 I begin with his generic key. I do not need to quote from mine, as my 

 larva-table rqns to specific and generic names combined ; 



