92 AUCx. R. GROTE. 



the pale annulate reniform is perceivable. T. p. line distinct, even, dark, with 

 a narrow succeeding pale shade, projected opposite the disc, slightly sinuate 

 inferiorly. Subterrainal line dentate, faint, accompanied opposite the disc by 

 vague broad ferruginous or bright shades. Secondaries with all the lines con- 

 tinuous. Median line distinct; outer transverse line (corresponding with t. p. 

 line) vague, with succeeding ferruginous shades. Discal black dot and streak. 

 Terminal lines double on both wings, subcontinuous, lunulated ; fringes cut 

 with ferruginous. Beneath paler with all the markings distinctly reproduced. 

 The more ferruginous diffusely shaded specimens are also more evidently 

 washed with purplish outside of the t. p. line. It varies in tint; the ferru- 

 ginous shadings become almost blackish in some female specimens. Expanse 

 25 to 26 m. m. 



Not rare in New York State; Mass.; Penna. 



This species seems to mimic P^ndropia homuraria G & /?, more than 

 any other of the Geometridae. The paler ferruginous purply washed 

 specimens have somewhat the tints of Choerodes. 



Dr. Fitch's Hypena elegantalis is a synonym. According to Mr. Ri- 

 ley, such names should obtain, because they are "better known," or ' ; for 

 reasons repeatedly given," or " for reasons which it would be too te- 

 dious to give," etc., etc. (See the Fourth Missouri Entomological Re- 

 port.) In this same report "moral objections" are found to Dr. Le 

 Conte's List of Coleoptera and our own of the moths, and it charged 

 that " indignation " is the sentiment that such works arouse in the 

 breast of the " true naturalist." Meaning, of course, the editor of the 

 aforesaid Annual. Setting aside the verbiage with which our most 

 modern author clothes his grievance, and coming to the point, we are 

 complained of for using the authority for the combined terms we retain, 

 instead of using iu every case the original authority for the species. 

 Attacus cecropia, Linn., is cited as a case in point on page 57. But 

 the impression sought to be conveyed by Mr. Riley is a false one. The 

 terms used for that species do not convey the same scientific idea. They 

 are not, strictly speaking, identical. For, until 18G5, it does not seem 

 to have been proven that Platysamia cecropia afforded a distinct struc- 

 tural generic type. It seems to us an "injustice" to the original 

 author of the combined generic and specific term, that he should not 

 be quoted when his term is used. It is his property and, if it is used, 

 he should be cited. 



But Mr. C. V. Riley himself would not " carry out the law of 

 priority too relentlessly." He " relents " when the species described 

 in the reports as new, are found to be old discoveries. We are then 

 asked to entirely ignore the original discoverer, to prefer Mr. C. V. Riley 



