42 



and R., and A. lycannn are also conceded by Grote to be syn- 

 onyms." 



I have on two occasions, by an examination of the types in 

 Harris's collection, satisfied myself that messoria and cocJiranii 

 are really identical, and notwithstanding Mr. Grote states that he 

 was unable to find the species in Harris's collection, it must be 

 there, unless destroyed or taken away since 1876. Mr. H. K. 

 Morrison also informs me that it was there in 1874, when he care- 

 fully studied and compared it with specimens of cochranii. 

 Whether repentis is or is not the same, this deponent sayeth not, 

 further than that the figure and description of this last confirms 

 the conclusion that it is. 



The readers of " Papilio " will doubtless wonder why a 

 copy of Harris's original report should have caused Mr. Grote to 

 change his mind, when the description of Agrotis messoria there 

 given is repeated verbatim in all subsequent editions. 



The little skirmish on the question of the identity of mes- 

 soria, seems, however, but a feint to cover a general criticism of 

 the descriptions of Noctuidfe in the Missouri reports, in which 

 Mr. Grote finds " that most, if not all, of the Noctuidse there 

 described as new, ivere in reality knozvn to science^' and then 

 specifies as follows: 



- Agrotis Cochranii, Riley, is A. Repentis, G. and R. 



Agrotis Sca7idens, Riley, may be A. Messoria H. 



Acronycta Populi, Riley, is A. Lepusculina G. 

 , Prodenia Autumnalis, Riley, is Laphygma Frugiperda A and S. 



Xyli7ia Cinerea, Riley, is X. Antennata, Walk. 



Plusia Brassiccp, may be P. Ni. HUBN. 



The above are, I believe, all the new Noctuidas in the Missouri Reports. 



Among the identifications of Ncc'uidte in the same Reports, the lollowing 

 are erroneous : Prodenia Comtnelina, Riley, is not Abbot and Smith's species, 

 but Liiieatella of Harvey. (It is possible that Flavimedia and Lineatella are 

 sexes of one species). Again, the Agrotis Jacidifsra ot Prof. Riley includes 

 Agrotis Tricosa of Prof. Lintner and, perhaps, Agrotis Herilis, Grote. 



By way of comment on the above permit me to call attention 

 to the following facts : 



First. That the synonymy there given in September was, so 

 far as it is correct, published in The Bulletin above cited, copies 

 of which were sent early in April to the New York Entomological 

 Club, as well as to several of its members individually. 



Second. That the species were, in most cases, published as 

 new in the Missouri Reports, upon the determinations of Mr. 

 Grote himself. To be more explicit : 



I. Since it is admitted that repentis G. and R. xs cocJiranii, 

 Riley, and the latter, as I have proved by examination of the 

 types, is messoria, Harr., it follows that this last cannot be sean- 

 dens, Riley, which, in fact, bears no resemblance to it, and has 

 always been pronounced a good species by Mr. Grote, both in his 

 published papers and in his correspondence with me. It were 



