59 



35. cupidissima Grt. California. 



36. crenulata Sm. California; Utah; Oregon. 



37. confasa Sm.*) Washington. 



S. g. Aplecta Gn. 1852. 



= Adelphagrotis Sm. 1890. 

 Type: N. prasina Fab. 



38. stellaris Grt. Nevada; Washington. 



39. indeterminata Wlk, California; Washington. 



innotabilis Grt. 

 var. washingtonensis Grt. 



40. quarta Grt. California. 



41. prasina Fabr. Canada to Colorado; Europe, 



herbida Hüb. 

 herbacea Gn. 



Subgen, Platagrotis Sm. 1890. 

 Type: A. speciosa. 



42. speciosa Hb. Can.; AThiteMts.; North. New York; 



Lahr.; Europe. 



*) The mistakes made by Mr. Smith iu this section of the genus are 

 gross and unparalleled. Of A. costata he remarks: The type is a very poor 

 specimen without a head. Mr. Smith omits to cite my Plate 4, fig. 5 upon 

 which I photograph the type with a head. In the course of years it may 

 have fallen off. Had Smith examined this Plate he never would have redescribed 

 the species one might think. In his Revision p. 38, Smith also overlooks my 

 Plate. These Plates are very good and cost me much trouble, time and money, 

 and were issued with the entire original edition of the Bulletin. He next 

 unites three of my species cupidissima, laetula and orbis, and in order to 

 give colour to his action, invents the story that I had confounded distinct species 

 in my characterizations — one with open the other with closed orbicular. Any 

 one will find that I always described the same three species, using the same 

 Bpecimens and never altering my determinatious of my types. That I had 

 misidentified, (?) some specimens in coli. Neumoegen gave Smith the excuse for 

 his mistakes, but not for the Rtatement made by him, Rev. p. 25. These 

 misidentifications should not have been brought iuto literature, the determinations 

 being tentative and made without my having been able to compare my types. 

 Under the name exsertistigma Morrison retnrned me specimens, my figure 

 12, PI. 4 Bnll. Buff. Soc, V. 3, belonging to a different species from the 

 specimen in coli. Tepper (my observabilis) declared to be the „type" on 

 insufficient groun'is by Smith. Morrison received all his material of 

 exsertistigma from me and credits me; this materinl sho ild have been all 

 returned to me. His so-called preliminary descriptions in Bost. Proc. should have 

 no Standing, because absolutely insufficient for the purpose of identifying the 

 species, all of which except exsertistigma and tenuicula have been 

 snbsequently recopnisably described by Morrison or myself. Conicquently the 

 specimen in coli. Tepper cannot be held the true rtype" and is probably a 

 subsequent „type" of Morrison's who, in other cases (e. g. scropulaua etc.), 

 made apparently falsa or subsequent „tj'pes", If it was a true „type" it 

 should have been returned to ti ne with the rest of my material and as it is clear 

 in any case, that Morrison mixed two species under this name, observabilis 

 must hold for one of them; exsertistigma should be wholly rejected but, 

 if it is to be kept. it belongs to the insect flgured by me Plate IV, fig. 12 

 loc. cit., described on page 70. As 1 am not sure that this species is ^= 

 confusa Sm„ unknown to me, I do not restore the name. See Smith Cat, 

 p. 55, where he says my specimens labeled exsertistigma are formaÜB. 

 See also Smith cat 86 with regard to Morrison's „liberal" manner in marking type«. 



