143 



stand Mr. Riley's remarks on " Pempclia grossularicF," in the July 

 number of Papilio, from the Bull. U. S. Ent. Commission. It is 

 really difficult to always understand what is meant by the labial 

 palpi being " recurved " or " porrect," and in this group I have 

 taken the venation, maxillary palpi and antenna; as the basis of 

 genera, not the labial palpi. I am accused of describing these 

 latter as " porrect " in StenoptycJia, and also of having stated that 

 Honora is to be considered as a section of Stenoptycha. I have 

 done neither. I do not describe Stenoptycha at all, and I say that 

 Honiara " seems to fall in with a section of StcnopoycJia " of which 

 I had not the European species to compare. Again, Dakruma 

 has other characters which will easily separate it from ZopJiodia 

 Bollii and Z. dentata, the only species of that genus I know. I 

 am quite sure that, in naming his species. Dr. Packard did not 

 intend to be as exact as to the genus as might be expected in a 

 paper on special classification, and thus his opinion should nf)t be 

 made use of as by Mr. Riley on this occasion. In working up 

 my material I could not place Z)rt/C'r«wrt among any of Von Heine- 

 man's genera and so described it as distinct, and whether the 

 species is European or not, this question is not affected. It is 

 true that Mr. Riley says that some specimens of grossiilarice do 

 not ''appear'' to present the character of Dakruma. What is 

 meant by "appear?" Do they, or do they not ? When more 

 material is brought together the question of Dakruma will be 

 settled at some future time, but Mr. Riley will hardly have con- 

 tributed to the decision by his present remarks. Although I did 

 not think that Professor Comstock's Dakruma was congeneric 

 with grossularicB, still, after examining the neuration, Professor 

 Comstock found it identical. It is very probable that the classi- 

 fication of the European species will be considerably changed 

 after the North American are known. This is the case already 

 in many groups of insects and can hardly fail to be so in families 

 like the Pyralidce, Phycidce and Tortricidce, where the European 

 and American forms fit in together. It is less likely to be so 

 with the Noctuidcs, where there are large quantities of forms, (z. e., 

 Guenee's Quadrijidce) comparatively wanting in Europe. But in 

 order to come to any scientific opinion in the matter, a certain 

 quantity, at least, of genera have to be studied, and I must refer 

 to the fact that before my paper was published Professor Riley's 

 descriptions in that group {Phycidee, i. e., PcmpeliaQ) Hammondi) 

 were made without any vital structural features at all being given ; 

 and certainly, by citing such forms as Grossularite and Hammondi 

 under Pempelia, Professor Riley showed that he had not at all 

 carefully studied the genera of PJiycid(E. 



I thought that Professor Riley's Grossu/aria might be a 

 Homeosoma when writing my paper. I was reasonably sure the 

 insect could not be d. Pempeiia, but, in the absence of any decisive 

 structural features being given, the drawing and description were 



