144 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



" tvpe," and there is none in his description. The type I saw oi cristifera 

 was evidently a male ; what is the sex of the supposed " type," the 

 specimen of lubens ? 



Walker's descriptions, though inadequate throughout, do not ever 

 necessarily contradict his material. They generally vaguely agree, and 

 though inadequate for identification are often sufficient as to the colour 

 and markings of his specimens. With structure he was profoundly unac- 

 quainted in the Lepidoptera. But, while making every allowance possible, 

 I submit that he never could have drawn up his description of cristifera 

 from a specimen of lubens I It is rather his weakness to exaggerate, by 

 not defining, small matters of shading in these sombre insects. He could 

 not have failed to note the centrally spotted orbicular, the " creamy- 

 yellow " upright reniform, the distinctly outlined claviform, the red flush, 

 the blue-gray powderings, the yellowish subterminal line, the carmine tint 

 beneath of lubens. Some trace of all these must have appeared in his 

 words. There is none at all ! He had a slighter Folia-\\k& insect before 

 him, which I saw, but could not locate definitely in my brief study. This 

 specimen must in some way have become exchanged for a specimen of 

 lubens, which may now stand there, but cannot in reason be considered 

 his "type" of cristifera. I pass over what I believe is the fact, that 

 Walker did not put the word " type " on a label attached to his specimens 

 and that therefore, in rearranging the material, a mistake might readily 

 occur. Were I to see his real- " type " of cristifera, I should recognize it 

 at once. Error is not out of the question because lubens is so strongly 

 marked, as Prof. Smith would have us believe. The " error" is not as to 

 the species, but as to the specimen ! Why does not Mr. Smith study the 

 British Museum Lists ? Why adopt as infallible the testimony offered by 

 the fact that the specimens in place no7i) in the British Museum are really 

 in every case Walker's identical " types "? Is there no margin for error 

 here.? It would seem that Prof Smith has throughout adopted the 

 theory that the specimens shown him as Walker's " types " must and are 

 really always what they purport to be. Yet I have shown in this case 

 that it may not always be so. I can put aside the fact that it is very un- 

 likely that I should have been deceived in the case of so prominent a 

 species, which, as Prof. Smith says, "must have been familiar" to me. 

 Undoubtedly lubens, Grt, was well known to me, known as long as most 

 of my moths. For a time, till 1875, I thought the species might be what 

 what was called " brassier " in Europe. Is it not possible that this iden- 



