210 



twenty-three new species of Agrotis, and I hope in clearness with 

 any of Mr. Morrison's more lengthy compositions. I am happy in 

 any case to notice the form of my descriptions of Noctuidae invol- 

 untarily commended hy Mr. Morrison by its aj^propriation. 



In describing Pyropliila glabella, Mr. Morrison makes the following 

 remarks : " Three forms have been recently described as distinct in 

 this genus, inornata Grote, conspersa Riley, and Agrotis repressus 

 Grote, but they have turned out to be identical with our common 

 pyramidoides Guen., and tragopoginis Linn. The first two are well 

 marked varieties of pyramidoides ; the last simjily a description, 

 under an erroneous generic reference, of American specimens of 

 tragopoginis a well known European species," 1. c. 153. Any one 

 would suppose, after reading the above, that Mr. Morrison was re- 

 cording some original observations of scientific value and that my- 

 self and Prof. Riley are to be corrected by him. The reverse is the 

 case. The references of inornata Grote and of conspersa Eiley to 

 pyramidoides, were already made ; the former by Prof. Eiley, the 

 latter by myself. I also am the first to correct my re-description of 

 tragopoginis, and at his desire furnished Mr. Morrison himself with 

 a specimen of this species, and this but " recently, " before the pub- 

 lication of his paper. In the "List" these citations are correctly 

 made and Mr. Morrison has drawn from thence his generic term Pyro- 

 pliila, not previously used for our American species. There are two 

 original mistakes in Mr. Morrison's remarks, however, that may be 

 corrected. The first lies in the unscientific use of the word " variety " 

 when writing of conspersa. The single specimen of conspersa is an 

 " aberration" oi pyramidoides, not a "variety." The second is in the 

 use of the word " recent," as applied to the time of description of 

 inornata, which is dated eleven years ago, in 1864. Geologically 

 speaking that description is of course recent; in comparison with any 

 of Mr. Morrison's comi^ositions, it is, however, sufliciently remote. 



I notice here the species of Mr. Morrison's which I have identi- 

 fied and which should be known under different names. Copi- 

 pa7iolis verncdis Morr., p. 133, is a re-description of Eutolype Ro- 

 landi Grote. I do not consider the species as belonging to my genus 

 Copipanolis. I have failed to observe the tibial claw until recently. 

 Its possession allies the moth still more closely to Dicopis Grote. 

 The three specimens sent me by Mr. Thaxter and Prof. C. V. Riley, 



