THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 83 



suppresses my reference of the species described by Moeschler as islandica 

 to opipara, in 1882, as cited above, and has the courage to write "the 

 error is Mr. Grote's for condemning Mr. Morrison's species on insufficient 

 grounds ! " By also suppressing Moeschler's original determination, I 

 am brought in for a synonym I never committed ! In effect what I 

 really did was this : I identified the two species described by Moeschler 

 from Labrador and Morrison from Mt. Washington as the same, which 

 was a clear scientific gain. I am also the first to show that Moeschler's 

 name for the species was the result of a wrong identification, and that our 

 North American species must be called opipara^ Morr., with is/andica, 

 Moeschl, nee. Stdgr., as a synonym ! In 1885, three years after my 

 rectification, Mr. Smith writes (Ent. Am., I., 14,) that "Mr. Moeschler's 

 claim that islandica is found in Labrador is based on a variety which is 

 certainly the opipara of Mr. Morrison." Here was the place to say that 

 I had made the correction and arrived at the conclusion in my note printed 

 in 1882 ! I think I may say that I have been anxious that every real mis- 

 take I have made should be rectified for the sake of science and that I 

 have never shunned a just criticism. But, in view of facts like the pre- 

 ceding, it will appear that an author may allow himself to publish a 

 criticism the reverse of just and v/ithout any apology for his conduct. 



Pachnobia carnea. 

 It is a matter of comparatively little consequence now whether Mr. 

 Morrison redescribed carnea or the closely allied Wockei from Labrador. 

 If the supposed " type " in Tepper coll. is alone genuine, he will have 

 redescribed the latter ; if the two (?) specimens he sent me at the time 

 are genuine " types," he will, I think, have described carnea. In order 

 to make out the former the true case, Prof Smith omits Mt. Washington 

 as locality for carnea in his Revision, and gives it only to Wockei. I do 

 not feel sure the two are really different and am quite certain Morrison 

 did not distinguish them. He sent me at the time to Buffalo a cigar box 

 half full of specimens, all " types" of his scropulana, for my opinion. I 

 wrote him they were very beautiful, but varied so much I could not 

 beheve well they were all one species. I was instructed to return them 

 at once and did so without taking them out of their places, retaining only 

 one or perhaps two of the dingiest specimens, which were specially 

 marked for me, and which, on comparison, I identified with carnea. 

 Now, long afterwards, and without knowledge of the facts. Prof Smith ap- 

 pears and writes as if he knew all about Morrison's " types," pronounces a 



