fers as strongly from Unio and Grata, and by as tangible marks 

 as characterize any two related genera in the order. The species 

 must then be thrown together, in this instance, from general re- 

 semblances of size and color. Yet Hubner is blamed for depend- 

 ing in his diagnoses upon size and color. But it is not accurate 

 to overlook the characters which separate Copridryas from 

 Eudryas ; and the close correspondence between the two species 

 of Eudryas, in structure, lends force to an objection against their 

 being brought together with Gloveri, in one and the same genus. 



The present "List" takes the place of the List of 1868. and 

 includes the various catalogues of single genera or families 

 which I have drawn up since that time. There are very few 

 changes which have not been explained by me elsewhere, and 

 with the consciousness that I have spared no labor or thought to 

 make it accurate, I leave it to its judges. The territory it covers 

 is the North American Continent, north of Mexico and the West 

 Indies. In the Dryocampadtz, three species are added, hitherto 

 only known from Mexico. Southwestern Texas will be found to 

 have many species in common with Northern Mexico ; and the ex- 

 tremity ofthe peninsula of Floridahas several species found in Cuba. 

 Dr. Le Conte's faunal map has shown itself correct so far, also, 

 as the Lepidoptera are concerned. I have omitted from this List 

 the signs of doubt as to the position of a species in a genus. In 

 a number of cases this needs revision, yet the " List " will prove 

 itself, I believe, more correct than its predecessors in this respect. 

 As some changes are made for the first time, and the " List " is 

 the result of my original work, it will have what authority I can 

 give it as a contribution to a natural arrangement of the material 

 it deals with. I have omitted also from this " List " the sign 

 placed after names of species which I have not seen. The num- 

 ber of these instances has diminished since the List of 1868, while 

 the number of species has greatly augmented. 



Much has been done for Science and a knowledge of our 

 species of Moths when they are named and catalogued correctly 

 — listed so that their names express their qualities, and their 

 position the relationship and ancestry of tlie different kinds. The 

 amateur, the collector, the exact thinker, is encouraged and 

 satisfied with these results, but the philosopher feels that the 

 quest is but half begun. The lives of these idle moths call out 

 no lessons of morality as the ant taught the Hebrew. But their 

 wings, carelessly fluttering, caught the eye of the Greek, half poet 

 and half philosopher, himself fond of the Sun and Nature, and they 

 served him for proof of Immortality. The Hebrew, more severe, 

 sought rules for his daily converse with other men ; his soul was 

 content within its dwelling. Afterwards one of his tribe was to 

 write the belief that in his flesh he was to see God. In the 

 meanwhile the Greek had turned Nature into Metaphysics, and 

 had consoled himself with Psyche. Not in the flesh, but on 



