— 163 — 



expressed in a letter written to us April 4, 1883, after full study of the 

 facts, and before he was aware of our previously published opinion to 

 the same effect. He remarks: "Compared with Say's excellent de- 

 scription, I believe it out of question not to accept Say's name, which 

 has priority. 



Forced thus, from the published data, to reject argillacea on the 

 ground of uncertainty, we have endeavored to reach the definitive con- 

 clusion from non-published, historical data, i. e., by an endeavor to as- 

 certain whether types of Hubner's argillacea were still in existence. Dr. 

 Hagen kindly informed us, in a letter dated April 12, 1883, that since 

 argillacea was described from the collection of the late Mr. Sommer of 

 Altona near Hamburg, it might perhaps be possible to find the type spe- 

 cimens still in that collection, as Mr. Sommer had his collection speci- 

 mens kept in very good order. The Sommer collection was supposed 

 to have been purchased by the Museum of the city of Hamburg, but 

 upon inquiry we were informed by Mr. C. Criiger, who was formerly 

 connected with the Museum Godeffroy of Hamburg, that the collection 

 had long since been purchased by Dr. Staudinger, of Blasewitz near 

 Dresden. Having thus traced the Sommer collection, we directed Mr. 

 A. Koebele to proceed, with specimens, to Germany, and to visit Dres- 

 den and inquire into the facts. With the kind permission of Dr. Staud- 

 inger, Mr. Koebele was able to make an examination of the Sommer 

 collection, but the results gave us no greater certainty; for, from the notes 

 made, it would appear that very few of the labels in the Sommer collec- 

 tion are written by Sommer. The collection is, also, in great disorder, 

 and has been neglected by Dr. Staudinger. Of the eight specimens of 

 our xylina in the collection one is marked from Panama, another from 

 Porto Rico; one is named ii A?io??iis grandipuncta Guen.", another, un- 

 spread 9 specimen '■'argillacea Hbn." and a third "A, grandis". If 

 there were any way of considering these labels authoritative the evidence 

 might be considered in favor of our xylina being Hubner's argillacea, 

 but from all the facts it is evident that the labeling has been done by 

 other hands, and there is other evidence to weaken the value of those 

 labels. Thus the type of argillacea is distinctly stated by Hiibner to be 

 male, so that the female above referred to could not be the type, which 

 must also have been spread to have permitted the artist to fully figure the 

 upper and under surfaces of all wings. Again in the Sommer collection 

 there are eight specimens of a closely allied moth — the Anomis luridula, 

 of which one is labeled "luridata/' and a second "modes/a' and a third 

 "exacla''. The species bears no resemblance whatever to the exacta of 

 Hubner's figures, so that we have here positive evidence oftheworth- 

 lessness of the labels as historical indications of Hubner's types. 



* 



