1910 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 47 



Their origin can in most cases only be surmised, but their diffusion and per- 

 sistence can be easily accounted for. In Europe they have always been much better 

 supplied with illustrated works on Entomology than we have been on this con- 

 tinent, and this is easily accounted for. In the first place the science was studied 

 there long before it was here and many North American insects were described 

 by European authors. Then there has always been a much larger number of col- 

 lectors in Europe than in America, and if many of them have done nothing else 

 to advance the science, their subscriptions have at least rendered possible the issue 

 of well illustrated works, which was also assisted by the much cheaper rate at which 

 such works could be produced in Europe than in America. i 



The earliest important work devoted to the Lepidoptera of North America 

 was the magnificent work by AbBot and Smith, in two large folio volumes on "The 

 Natural History of the Karer Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia," which was pub- 

 lished in London in 1797, but this was a costly work and only found its way into 

 the more important libraries and to a few wealthy collectors. 



Thomas Say, who has been called the Father of American Entomology, wrote 

 between 1818 and his death in 1834, but it was only in 1859 that his complete 

 writings on Entomology w^ere collected by Dr. John L. Leconte, and issued in two 

 volumes. Of the 54 coloured plates, only 12 were devoted to the Lepidoptera, 

 most of the others being given to the Coleoptera. In 1841 appeared the first edition 

 of Dr. Harris' classic work on the "Insects of Massachusetts Injurious to Vegeta- 

 tion," and other editions were issued in 1842 and 1852, and the revised edition by 

 Flint in 1861. But from none of these works could the names of more than a very 

 few of the moths of this continent be learned, and, therefore, collectors were depend- 

 ent upon the leading authorities in the various branches for the determination of 

 their captures. 



As Mr. Grote was tlie leading authority upon the Noctuidse, he was probably 

 the one most frequently appealed to for determinations, indeed, he once advertised 

 that as his time was so much taken up with this work he would for the future make 

 a charge for naming specimens, which probably had the effect of materially reduc- 

 ing the applications. 



Another who did a great deal of this work was Dr. Herman Strecker, who 

 advertised his readiness to determine material sent him. 



Under such conditions it can be easily understood that mistakes would be sure 

 to arise. In many cases duplicate specimens would be numbered and sent for name, 

 corresponding numbers being placed on other specimens, which were retained by 

 the collector. Unless specimens were rare, their return would often not be asked, 

 in order to avoid the return express charges, but a list with numbers and the names 

 would be returned. 



Mistakes might happen in many ways. As has been said, "no one is infallible, 

 not even the youngest of us," and these high authorities would certainly have some 

 errors in their collections, and so name these species wrongly for others. Again, 

 in handling the specimens, the numbers of a couple might drop off and then be 

 accidentally transposed in replacing them, and this might occur either in the hands 

 of the one who named, or the collector who sent them. Or the collector might make 

 a mistake and think two closely allied fornis the same and send one for name, while 

 retaining the other as his numbered specimen. 



Given an initial error, its spread would be inevitable. John Brown, who had 

 had his specimens determined by so high an authority as the celebrated Dr. Blank, 

 would at once become an authority among those of his acquaintance whose speci- 

 mens have not been so authoritativelv determined, and these collectors would be 



