58 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



Apatcla (Acroiii/cta) among the Arctiidae, &c. Pharetra is, however, 

 hardly an Arctian, but its type seems to represent a distinct structural 

 group of Apatela. I would suggest that the structure of these six 

 English species be carefully made out and compared. Apparently the 

 five groups all occur in North America, together with three others, 

 Mc(jacroiiicla (^ = Apatcla?), Eittoreuma, and Mat^tiphancs, not repre- 

 sented in Europe. Two other former groups, Meralonche and 

 Ealuiichc, are now regarded as distinct genera. All these names, with 

 their types, are given in my recent List. — A. Radcliffe Grote, A.M. 



I disagree in toto with some of the assumptions in the above paper. 

 (1) There can be no " genera in Apatela,''' unless Apatela be used as the 

 name of some group higher than a genus. 80 far as the group has ever 

 received a collective name, surely ^ic/'O^yc/id* is that name. (2) There 

 can be, according to Dr. Chapman's showing, only three natural sub- 

 divisions (genera) of our British species of Acronijctidi. These have 

 been grouped under the names Vimiiita, Guspidia and Bisulcia. (3) 

 Dr. Chapman states (Ent. Rec, vol. i., p. 4) : " The riunicis group 

 (i.e., ViiiiiniaJ are very closely related and hardly admit of subdivision, 

 although albovenosa, on the ground of the coloration of the imago, 

 may be separated for convenience." Further he writes: "The 

 Citspidia group is not so homogeneous as the first, and may be sub- 

 divided, if fancy so dictates, into subgenera, of which each species, 

 except the two first, will represent one. Such subdivision might be 

 desirable if one Avere dealing with the Acronyctids of the whole Avorld." 

 Assuming that Professor Grote is dealing with the Acronijctidi of the 

 world, it appears to me that unless he can show some very good struc- 

 tural chaL-acters, the following classification must be accepted : — 



' Bisulcia iigustri 



Only thus far can I accept these old names, until Professor Grote can 

 show me some reason for undoing Dr. Chapman's monumental work 

 in this Tribe. This work (so far as Professor Grote's paper goes) 

 remains unchallenged, and therefore I cannot accept mere names 

 (given by Hilbner without knowledge of any real alliance) to supersede 

 the biological conclusions arrived at by Dr. Chapman. I appreciate to 

 the full, and see the necessity of, Professor Grote's synonymic studies, 

 but I draw the line when names replace science. From my point of view 

 entomology is a biological subject, and must be treated as such, and 

 when biology clashes with literature, well — literature must go. 



It may be as well, while this subject is before our readers, to call their 



