258 a. a. (iiuiTK. 



Recently Mr. Smith criticised in Can. Entomologist my diagnosis of a 

 Deltoid genus by saying I did not state whether the eyes were naked or 

 not. I replied that all Deltoid genera had naked eyes. Mr. Smith then 

 answered that my statement gave a wrong impression, because some gen- 

 era had them lashed ! He, therefore, did not then know that the term 

 " naked" applied to the surface of the compound eye itself and that the 

 lashes were the fringe around the orbit, that eyes could be naked and 

 lashed (Homohadena), or hairy and unlashed! 



I have given the full terminology of the characters of the Noctuidoe in 

 my writings. Mr. Smith uses precisely these characters. It should have 

 struck him that our results would, under these circumstances, nearly coin- 

 cide. And that I could not have examined the material where these char- 

 acters were at variance with the classification adopted. In fact, while my 

 Lists are the result of my studies, I have expressly stated that I brought 

 our fauna into a general correspondence with the European and that in 

 details much work remained to be done. In the following paper I have 

 discussed some of Mr. Smith's criticisms. In the Kepublic of Science 

 every one is bound to state facts and it is his duty to do so. But, as in 

 any other social republic, the laws of conduct should be respected. It is 

 nowhere necessary to be unfair and prejudiced. I can show that Mr. 

 Smith has transgressed in this way in his paper. He has been unfair in 

 concealing that his synonymy is taken from me, that his generic types are 

 those laid down by me in my List of 1874. He does not credit me with 

 the separation of Mtlicleptria with cardui as type, nor does this matter 

 that he takes out one or two species. Above all he ignores the fact that 

 I have gradually established certain genera and species and had no oppor- 

 tunity of comparing all the European genera. In a difficult group where 

 many types were uniques and left my hands after description, it was to 

 be expected that changes would be made when all were compared. Many 

 intermediate forms came up from time to time and necessitated changes. 

 So bent is Mr. Smith to cavil, that he brings up the fact that in estab- 

 lishing the genus Heliohmche ten years ago, I first called the tibiae non- 

 spinose, and that I properly corrected it immediately afterwards by find- 

 ing them armed. Why such a fact should be repeated I am at a loss to 

 know. Mr. Smith is unjust when he says my course with volupia is 

 " scarcely honest." The facts are these : I identified Dr. Fitch's volupia 

 hesitatingly. Dr. Fitch's description contradicts my insect in color of 

 hind wings and details of markings. I could not be sure of my deter- 

 mination ; in fact, I am astonished now to hear that I was right and that 

 my insect corresponds with Dr. Fitch's type. After twice describing and 



