142 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Smith afterwards confirms the decision. That the specimen considered 

 by Butler and Smith to be the " type " of cristifera. Walk , is really 

 liibens, I do not doubt. But that this specimen was described by Walker 

 and seen by me, I do not only doubt, but I shall try to show the impossi- 

 bility of. Let me premise that, so far as I can find out, in every case 

 where I have positively identified Walker's species, after seeing the Brit. 

 Mus. Collection, my identification is adopted and verified afterwards by 

 Prof. Smith, as a study of his synonymy will show. In every case but 

 this ; for even where, from the poor condition of the specimen, I only 

 ventured to suggest the identity, as with A. min-aenula, the supposition 

 is confirmed. Let me also premise that, in the search for " types," Prof. 

 Smith has not stopped to verify the supposed " type " by the description. 

 Yet the description is the sole real authority for the authenticity of the 

 " type." A number of times have I, in print, drawn attention to this 

 fact, that when a supposed " type " contradicts the published description, 

 the "type" must be held to be spurious. Not only does literature bring 

 ample evidence that " types " have been subsequently made, but a 

 mistake in labelling, a changing of the label, may not infrequently occur, 

 and has often occurred as the result of accident. We may go further and 

 say that a description must tolerably well conform to the appearance 

 and character of the specimen, to be accepted as having been drawn up 

 from it. But, in the present case, we may waive all such argument, 

 weakened as it must be by Walker's poor descriptive methods. The 

 description of cristifera simply contradicts the supposition that a speci- 

 men of //<((5^«5 could have served for its basis. It bears out my inde- 

 pendent testimony, written without consulting the B. Mus. Lists, that a 

 sordid, dusky or '• brownish " gray insect, without any brighter colouring, 

 was before Mr. Walker. Accessory evidence is that hibens is not, so far 

 as known, a northern species at all, not else known in the Hudson Bay 

 collections ; while the form I saw had the northern aspect of Polia aspera. 

 Again, Mr. Walker's generic references are wild, but there is still some 

 method in them. A moth to be referred by him to Acronycta must have 

 something gray, black and white, about it, to say the least. Now lubens 

 is not gray after this fashion. It is more brown than gray. It is very 

 dark grayish with generally over all a distinct reddish flush and tinge, 

 especially basally. The reniform spot is upright and yellowish, not 

 kidney-shaped. Beneath it is even brighter coloured, tinged with carmine 

 or bright red. The hind wings are not gray or " cinereous " at all, but 



