250 THE entomologist's record. 



savant of tlie past. Perhaps an enquii'y of this kind with regard to the 

 label on the type of Siae-Johannis might be productive of result, but it 

 is clear that the interest will now be mainly of an antiquarian nature, 

 while the probability is, that the voyage invented by Mr. Smith, in 

 order to legitimize the label, should be treated as having a similar 

 foundation to any one of those of Sindbad the Sailor. Mr. Smith, it 

 is pretty clear by this time, conceived a wrong estimate of the insect, 

 and invented a wrong theory, aided by a wrong label, to justify his 

 original error. Xone of his usual excuses will avail him here. lie 

 cannot say, for instance, that he " knew " it was a good species, but 

 recorded it as an aberration — because, there is the theory I Nor can he 

 say that the "thin balsam" made the error easy; there is no balsam 

 for Mr. Smith I am afraid in this sad case, thin or thick. At the 

 most he might say my correction is merely " verbal," as indeed most 

 corrections are, unless administered with a stick. Or he might say, 

 that he '•' cannot account " for his mistake, neither can I. But, I anti- 

 cipate, in selecting from the large stock of excuses which Mr. Smith 

 has on various occasions offered to the public. Qui fi^excmc s'acciise, and 

 Mr. Smith himself is probably more affected than anybody else, Avhen 

 he is caught " napping " or " blundering." The whole statement, in 

 fact, of Mr. Smith, his positive style, his faith in the label, his wild 

 theory to establish its genuineness, his profound and solenni determi- 

 nation of the varietal character of the moth, remind us not a little of 

 the occurrence noted in Piclcicicli, Chap. xi. — " there is an inscription 



here, said Mr. Pickwick, I can discern a cross." Seriously 



speaking, I must now correct the Philadelphia List, and give a full one 

 of all the Eudriinae known. 



EuDRYAS, Boisd. (1836). Grt., o. hrevlpenim, Stretch. Cali- 

 restr. (1895). , fornia. 



(Type): E. assimilis). I Copidryas, Grt. (1876). 



1. (/rata, Fabr., Xorth America. 



assimilis, Bdv. 



2. stae-johamiis, Walk., Mexico ; 



Fla. ? 



3. cypris, Grt., Paraguay. 

 EUTHISANOTIA, Hbu. (1825). 



(Type : E. imio). 



4. unio, Hbn., Atlantic District. 



6. (jloveri, G. & E., Texas. 



7. lAatensis, Berg., Buenos Aires. 



EUSCIRRUOPTEKUS, Grt, 



8. poeiji, Grt., Cuba. 



disparilis, H.-S. 

 CiRis, Grt. (1863). 



9. icilsoni, Grt., Texas. 



^ome varieties of ploctuse from Doncaster-* 



Ey H. H. CORBETT, M.E.C.S. 



In submitting for 3-our inspection and discussion this evening some 

 varieties of Noctu.t^ from Doncaster, I do not intend to startle you by an 

 exhiliit of any vev}' extraordinary forms, but rather to show, by a few 

 picked specimens from my series of the various species, the ordinar}^ 

 range of variabilit}^ in my localit}^ hoping that such of you as are 

 interested in this group, may find something worthy of your attention 

 and study. The comparison of local forms of common insects is to me 



* A paper read before the Lane, ami Chesli. Eat. Soc. on Feb. 16th, 1895. 



