2l6 



dence. While these gentlemen are principals in interest in this 

 matter, they are not principals in evidence. Priority in names is 

 based upon priority of publication. I accepted against Mr. 

 Strecker, Mr. Grote's admission that Part XL of Mr. Strecker's work 

 was distributed Nov. lo, 1874. Had there been any necessity I 

 would have demanded evidence from the publisher Mr. Strecker 

 employed. Mr. Grote's descriptions were published by the 

 American Ento. Soc, of Philadelphia, through Mr. Chas. A. 

 Blake, its curator. Mr. Strecker, hearing I was about to publish 

 the catalogue, wrote me a long article founded on letters received 

 by him at the time from Mr. Blake, showing from these letters 

 that Mr. Grote's names were not published in any way before 

 Nov. 10. I told him, by letter, I would not receive that as evi- 

 dence, unless Mr. Blake gave it his personal endorsement, and 

 thus, as the agent of the Society, gave its declaration as to the 

 time of publication. The papers were taken to Mr. Blake, and 

 he, on the back of Mr. Strecker's argument, wrote as follows: 

 " After going over all the data and correspondence between Mr. 

 Strecker and myself, and carefully comparing dates from my own 

 postal cards and letters to him in regard to the time proofs were 

 sent to him (Mr. Strecker), it appears that Mr. Grote could not 

 have received his " author's proofs " of his paper bearing date Sep- 

 tember, 1874, till after November 10, 1874, as there was no final 

 corrected proof issued on that date yet. The matter on the 

 other side of this, I find after going over carefully with the data 

 at hand, is perfectly correct, so that if you want to use the name 

 of Strecker after the species of Catocalae in dispute, do so. 



Chas. A. Blake." 

 After my article was published, Mr. Hy. Edwards found 

 some letters written him by Mr. Strecker at the time, which 

 showed that Mr. Strecker's descriptions were not as yet written 

 early in October, 1874. Of the existence of the letters neither 

 Mr. Grote nor myself knew at the date of my publication. But 

 from them it becomes certain that Mr. Strecker ante-dated Part 

 XI of his work ; and the two gentlemen in Brooklyn who told 

 me they saw his proof sheets in August, were mistaken. These 

 gentlemen are persons whose word any one would have taken 

 without dissent. I told Mr. Grote I would publish the fact of 

 Mr. Strecker's ante-dating, but he demanded that with that I 

 should say the species were his, which, of course, I could not. I 

 offered to publish the fact in the Bulletin of the Brooklyn Ento. 

 Soc. ; but as the fact did not affect the priority, the editor re- 

 fused to allow it as it might tend to create confusion. Mr. Grote 

 undoubtedly had his names first in MSS. Mr. Strecker undoubt- 

 edly had his first published. The date — September, 1874 — on 

 Mr. Grote's paper is the time it was received by the American 

 Ento. Soc, and perhaps went to the printer — but the printer was 

 slow, and^Mr. Strecker got ahead in the race. When Mr. Hy. 

 Edwards, acting as the advocate of Mr. Grote, came with his let- 



