THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. (S3 



lished before the book was even written. However, even on this score, no 

 objection can possibly be applied to her book, since her keys were entirely 

 reconstructed from non-Carnegie material. 



5. " Her action in copyrighting drawings which she had been ^^aid to 

 prepare for the Carnegie Institution Monograph is certainly indefensible.'' 

 Not one of these drawings was published in " Mosquito Life," and as 

 Dr. Dupree had already given the Carnegie people permission to publish 

 such of them as were copied from his own, and the author was merely act-' 

 ing in his place, the publication of the originals in "Mosquito Life " in no 

 way affected this permission. 



The above is, I believe, sufficient to show the utter falsity of Dr. 

 Dyar's charges. The writer regrets that, as a matter of justice as well as 

 of record, the occasion necessitates the preparation and publication of the 

 present reply. The author's well-known scientific probity should have 

 precluded the possibility of any personal attack. 



A FURTHER NOTE ON SYNELYS ENUCLEATA. 



BY L. W. SWETT, MALDEN, MASS. 



In the December Can. Ent., Vol. XXXIX, p. 412, Mr. Prout has 

 added some very interesting material to what I had found out. He 

 seemed puzzled about two things : first, why I thought the original 

 description or typical form was drawn up from one specimen. In the last 

 line of Guenee''s description he says " ( $ semblable) "; this Mr. Prout 

 must have overlooked, as he says it was drawn up from " 6 examples," 

 and the typical form was the one without blotches, but, as can be seen, it 

 was from one specimen that he drew the description, and Mr. Prout is 

 mistaken. Guenee certainly knew all the forms, and the " 6 examples " 

 refers to the other two forms under variety A with blotches on both wines 

 and on the fore wings only. Secondly, Mr. Prout wonders why I believed 

 the form with blotches on both wings to be enudeata. Well, 

 simply because I found them so labelled in Packard's collection and 

 figured in the Monograph, and because I knew that Guenee's types were 

 known to Packard, and that they corresponded, I formed this conclusion. 

 I found on reading the description that the two did not agree, but 

 accepted Packard's judgment in preference to my own in this case. I 

 have no doubt that Mr. Prout is correct, and shall accept his judgment 

 regarding my correction, as being in Europe with the Walker types and 



March, 1908 



