i6o 



in that paper from my "List," or my original " Revision," Tr. 

 Am. Ent. Soc. 4, 1872, can be shown to be superfluous or erro- 

 neous, and often made without a knowledge of the species dis- 

 cussed. Neither from the literary or biological point of view did 

 the author possess sufficient information to warrant his writing 

 extendedly upon the subject. 



In a somewhat lengthy preamble, in w^hich I find nothing 

 original which is at the same time important, Mr. Hulst likens the 

 present knowledge of the species of Catocala to a diseased infancy. 

 In this Mr. Hulst confounds the state of his own mind on the 

 subject with that of others, an error often committed and difficult 

 to guard against. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Hulst 

 notices the fact, alluded to by other writers, that certain species 

 of Catocala approach each other, while separable by the color of 

 the hind wings. Mr. Hulst cites the example of Illccta and 

 Conciunbcns, originally given by myself. But he adds to them 

 the species Zoe and Ilia, as affording a parallel case. Now these 

 last two do not differ by the color of the secondaries, except so 

 slightly as not to warrant the remark, and agree so closely in 

 other respects, that it is perhaps doubtful if they are distinct 

 species. The orange and yellow species cannot be separated 

 under distinct groups, as these colors are not always constant in 

 one species. I may cite Vcrrilliana, which varies from the type, 

 in which the hind wings are brick or orange red, to var. Ophelia, 

 where they are purely red or crimson and to a variety from 

 Arizona where they are yellowish. Again Mr. Hulst cites 

 Cerogaina and Relicta, but these two are not at all nearly allied. 

 Rclicta belongs to the sub-genus Catocala, as restricted by 

 Hubner, and I have originally shown, in the pages of the 

 Popular Science Monthly, that our form has a few blue scales on 

 the white band, and thus light is thrown on the probable 

 common origin of our form and the European Fraxini. 



I will now substantiate my remarks by going over the points 

 made by Mr. Hulst, in which he differs from my List. In all of 

 these he agrees with Mr. Strecker, and thus 1 am led to ascribe 

 Mr. Hulst's venture solely to a desire to forestall opinion in 

 favor of Mr. Strecker. It is known that one of Mr. Strecker's 

 numbers was ante-dated "August," while not issued until Novem- 

 ber. The reason for this offense was that Mr. Strecker therein 

 re-named certain of my species published by the American Ento- 

 mological Society in September. In this way Mr. Strecker hoped 

 to secure the recognition of his names. But it is not the only 

 attempt of Mr. Strecker to secure for himself priority. Another 

 writer has convicted him of similar work in the Butterflies, see 

 Can. Entom. p. ']6, 1878, where Mr. Strecker's methods "can 

 scarcely be called honest." 



The statement made by Mr. Hulst, that he "'attempted to 

 get at the truth " of the matter, is very singular, seeing that he 



