THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 229 



THE CHALCID GENUS RILEYA. 



My good friend Mr. Howard, in his article entitled " The Chalcid 

 Genus Rileya," published in the October Can. Ent., p. 191, makes 

 several inaccurate statements ; and, in the lines "An interesting inter- 

 ference in the adoption of the generic name Rileya has recently taken 

 place between Mr. Ashmead and myself," implies that I knowingly 

 appropriated this name for a genus in the Eurytomince, after he had 

 decided to use it for one in the Encyrtince, when I had no such knowl- 

 edge, thereby placing me in an unenviable position before my colleagues. 



For the guidance of those who will have to settle this question, I 

 must state that my description of the Eurytomid genus Rileya was drawn 

 up and forwarded to Prof. E. A. Popenoe for publication about the last 

 of November, 1887, and a synoptic characterization of the genus appeared 

 in the Entomologica Americana for June 188S, although the full descrip- 

 tion of the genus was not published, as stated by Mr. Howard, until after- 

 wards — about July 5th, one month later ; still, both of these descriptions 

 were published three or four months ahead of Mr. Howard's. 



The opinion, expressed by Mr. Howard, that because the name 

 Rileya is given in my synopsis of the Eurytominas, " not as a new genus, 

 but as one already described, and the few words given to it in the table 

 fail to sufficiently characterize it" is a matter of surprise to me, for the 

 characters given definitely separate it from all other Eurytomids, the 

 characters are too unique among the Eurytomince to be mistaken, and as 

 to whether it was indicated as a new genus " has nothing to do with the 

 case." I might have indicated the genus without my name, or in the 

 usual way — nov. gen., mihi., et cetera, yet the genus would hold. 



As I have before stated, I had no knowledge of Mr. Howard's 

 intention to dedicate a genus to Dr. Riley, and I regret that such knowl- 

 edge was withheld from me, so that a controversy of this kind could have 

 been avoided. The first intimation that I had of his intention to do so 

 was on receipt of my July number of the Entomologica Americana, 

 received, I think, about July 12th, and several months after my descrip- 

 tion of the genus had been forwarded to Prof. Popenoe ; and just one 

 month after the publication of my " Revised Generic Synopsis of the 

 Eurytominse." 



