«• q .y 



■ I'Jj 



A. R. Grote's Notes on the Zygsenidse of Cuba. 



have little to add to the matter, except that I was then and am yet unacquainted 

 with the species included under the Thyridopteryx by Dr. Packard in the "Sy- 

 nopsis." By actual comparison, through the kindness of Dr. Packard, I ascer- 

 tained at the time the identity of (Eceticus coniferarum, Harris, with a species 

 occurring plentifully in New York. On a comparison of this species with the true 

 (Eceticus (Oiketicus, Guilding.) from Cuba, I found the two forms to ba generi- 

 eally distinct, so that, in noticing a new species congeneric with 0. coniferarum, 

 I very naturally erected a genus to contain the two species. Dr. Clemens, with- 

 out examining specimens of H. thoracicum from Cuba, doubts the validity of the 

 species, but, having examined and compared the two, I am decided that the much 

 smaller and differently colored T. thoracica, is distinct. And I see nothing sur- 

 prising in this circumstance, since the Cuban Bombycidce are entirely distinct 

 from our U. S. species of the Family with but one exception, and that — Utetheisa 

 liella — one about which much remains to be ascertained. Perophora, another 

 l'svchid genus, is represented by a peculiar and amply distinct species — P. 

 packardii, m. — the validity of which lias been since supported by Dr. Herrich- 

 Schaeffer, who lias examined specimens of P. packardii, sent by Dr. Gundlach. 

 The remarks of Mr. Walsh on this subject in the November number of the 

 "Practical Entomologist," have also been shown to me. I am sorry to see Mr. 

 Walsh's statement that Dr. Clemens communicated to him by letter, that "Mr. 

 Grote gave a third name to this same species, (i. e. Thyr. ephemeraiforrais, Steph. 

 =0. coniferarum, Harris, teste Clem.) — Hymenopsyche thoracicum." In this 

 ease we have Dr. Clemens' own printed Paper to refer to, and can see, that Dr. 

 Clemens merely presumed, or suggested, that the Cuban was not sufficiently dis- 

 tinct from the United States species : which latter I certainly never determined 

 as "Hymenopsyche thoracicum," but, under Dr. Harris' specific name, simply 

 referred the species to the same genus with H. thoracicum, as above explained. 

 With this reference Dr. Clemens does not find fault, rather the reverse, since 

 he says I "very properly" changed the generic determination of (Eceticus coni- 

 ferarum of Drs. Harris and Packard. Under the circumstances also, that ''Ste- 

 phens' specimen was doubtless nearly or quite denuded, the antennae were in- 

 jured and the hind wings were almost entirely destroyed," much might be pro- 

 perly urged to support both my genus and Dr. Harris' species, although, it is 

 added, that "Stephens' generic description is sufficiently graphic, together with 

 the description and figure given, to identify it at once with Hymenopsyche of 

 Grote." The generic characters given by Stephens, become much less trench- 

 ant when the species afterwards described and figured by Westwood under Oi- 

 keticus, and subsequently "partially separated under distinct genera by Mr. 

 Walker, are considered ; indeed, on comparing all these generic diagnoses in the 

 British Museum Lists, I considered at the time, that our United States form had 

 been hitherto unnoticed by Authors, and I was strengthened in my belief by 

 l>r. Harris' reference of the species to (Eceticus. Under these impressions I was 

 careful to give a detailed description of the structural characters of our species, 

 and in particular I endeavored to bring out the neurational features, which 

 seemed to be peculiar, and I am happy to see" my generic diagnosis commended 

 in this respect by Dr. Clemens, so that I am not unreasonable in supposing my 

 determination to have been of some assistance in the matter. Leaving, how- 

 ever, the case as satisfactorily settled by Dr. Clemens, I desire to notice Mr. 

 Walsh's remarks briefly in conclusion. Considering on what extraordinary 

 grounds Mr. Walsh has separated certain of our Lepidoptera as distinct species, 

 the remarks of this gentleman come with peculiar bad grace when they take the 



