THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 145 



tical " type " of Walker's was what he called brassicce ? I have not the 

 literature at the moment to refer to. It has no immediate bearing on my 

 conclusion, which is this, that the species I have named in American 

 collections Mamestra lubens must retain its name. 



I do not belong to the school which would ignore the British Museum 

 Catalogue altogether. As much as any one I have worked out Walker's 

 species and generally adopted his names when earlier. It is true I lose 

 more than any one else by Walker's insutlicient descriptions. I do not 

 object to this, for the reason that our main need is a stable nomenclature. 

 This latter cannot be established by the procedure of taking a specimen 

 as Walker's " type " which does not answer his pubHshed description. 

 The real basis for our nomenclature is our literature. If lubens is drop- 

 ped for cristifera, then this basis is fundamentally attacked. What is 

 called a " type " supersedes it. But labelling a specimen can never con- 

 stitute a publication. Walker's text must conform always and in every 

 case sufficiently with his supposed " type," and at least not contradict it. 

 In this case the description does not conform and does contradict the 

 assumption of Mr. Butler. There may be other cases, but I have no 

 means to look into them. I am quite willing that Walker's names should 

 be restored and credited to him as if he had fully described his material. 

 That so many of my species should be thus drawn in, js certainly no fault 

 of mine. The labour of comparing Walker's " types " is no greater than 

 than that of determining any other lot of specimens ; but the labour used 

 in trying to make out his descriptions will in almost every case be always 

 in vain. After I had satisfied myself of this in 1868, I ceased to trouble 

 myself to look through the Catalogues for a possible identification, which, 

 in the best case, would be a doubtful one. It was much better to write 

 recognizable descriptions of our Noctuidae and run the risk with Mr. 

 Walker. And when all is restored that can be restored to Mr. Walker, it 

 may, I think, be said of my work with justice, that at a time when we in 

 America had no names at all for our Owlet moths, I built up gradually a 

 nomenclature which, for the greatest part, will endure. 



Two other points remain to be elucidated. I am persistently credited 

 by Prof. Smith with the description oilorea under the name dodgei. I have 

 not the literature, but my me nory is that I never described such a species, 

 but that Mr. Morrison did. The last point relates to the type oi ferrealis. 

 I received this from Morrison's late Montana collections. It is very 



