126 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. xv. 



constant species (^hen?-ici) and a very variable species {ints). In my 

 article (Can. Ent., June, 1905) I sought to indicate the principal 

 characters which I had always found associated in lienrici. I have 

 not since found it necessary to modify my characterization of that 

 species. My knowledge is confined to the 18S heiirici in my own 

 collection, the specimens in the New York State Museum, the Museum 

 of Natural History (New York City), the National Museum, eleven 

 private collections to which I have access, and a few individuals which 

 I have sent to other collections. Still I am not wedded to the gen- 

 eralizations and am perfectly willing to abandon each and all of them 

 upon the presentation of proper evidence ; however — not otherwise. 



Concerning the differentiating characters which I gave for irus I 

 frankly admit that each may prove unreliable when considered alone * 

 but I have yet to find a specimen which does not exhibit soine of the 

 differentiating characters. My examination has been confined to the 

 material in the collections before mentioned, the J. A. Lintner 

 Memorial Collection and 634 specimens in my own cases. It is by 

 no means impossible that Dr. Skinner, with a larger or more complete 

 series has been enabled to reach conclusions more valuable than those 

 which I have published. 



To sum up : points i, 2 and 3 may be dismissed as irrelevant ; 

 point 4 is conceded, it has no weight as an argument ; point 5 does 

 not fall under the head of " evidence " — it is an opinion ; points 6 

 and 7 are open to question. I would point out that Dr. Skinner's 

 failure to find correlated differences among the butterflies does not 

 prove that such differences do not exist ; and even if they did not exist ^ 

 the main thesis (that henrici is identical with irus') would still be 



unproven. 



The Evidence not Presented. 



It may be pertinent also to examine the evidence which Dr. 

 Skinner has withheld. In reply to the seven points of evidence which 

 he has adduced in support of his contention, I would present seven 

 other points as follows : 



1. Henrici eggs differ constantly from irus eggs. 



2. Henrici larvae in the second stage differ constantly from irus 

 larvae in the second stage. 



*For instance the criterion of the projection of the basal-area (secondaries 

 beneath) between the median nervules, has failed in four cases out of more than eight 

 hundred — less than one half of one per cent. 



