43 



more appropriately compared with inur<2nula, Grt. Assuming, 

 however, for the sake of argument, that inessoria is not repentis, 

 then why is cocJiranii made a synonym of repentis, since the 

 description of the former was published June 22, 1867, and that 

 of the latter in January, 1868. Mr. Grote could at no time have 

 claimed ignorance of the former description because he wrote me, 

 by date of June 24, 1867, as follows: "I thank you for the 

 Prairie Farmer, containing a detailed and interesting account of 

 cut-worms, with your description o{ A. CocJiranii. n. sp." 



2. Acronycta popiili. I have accepted Mr. Grote's decision 

 that this is lepiiscnlina, Guen., though, as I have pointed o\xt, pop- 

 tili differs in several respects from the description of lepnsculina. 

 See Mo. Rep,, II, p. 121, and General Index, etc.: 6, p. 74. 



3. Prodenia autumnalis. This was pronounced by Mr. Grote, 

 by letter of August 25, 1869, as " Prodenia sp. new to me." and 

 while I have long since accepted LapJiygma friigiperda, S. and 

 Abb., as a synonym of one of its varieties, the other varieties 

 would, without the proof to the contrary, which I gave, have un- 

 doubtedly been described as distinct. 



4. Xylina cinerea. This was pronounced different from any- 

 thing known to Zeller, at the time of the description, and was 

 then, and for several years thereafter, pronounced a good species 

 by Mr. Grote. I discussed its affinities at the time of the descrip- 

 tion, and the authors of the recent " Check List of Macro-iepi- 

 doptera," published by the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 

 express their doubt as to the identity of cinerea and ccntennata by 

 retaining the former without number. I have since read 

 Walker's description, and no one could say positively what is 

 meant without seeing the type. 



5. Phisia brassiccB. This was described as new on the au- 

 thority of Zeller, as stated at the time. Speyer, as I have shown 

 (General Index, etc., p. 78), proves it to be really distinct, and his 

 careful comparisons will doubtless convince most Lepidopterists. 



6. Prodenia cornmelincB. This was so pronounced by Mr. 

 Grote, from a specimen sent him August 8th, 1867. Flavimedia 

 and lineatella were characterized by Mr. Harvey, some years later, 

 as I have stated in the "General Index," p. 56. Here again, 

 however, as in the case oi A. snbgotJiica and its forms we have, 

 I am satisfied, a question of varieties rather than species. With 

 the well known varieties of LapJiyguia frngiperda in mind, I have 

 been particularly interested, for a good many years, in breeding 

 this Prodenia, and I record here my belief, which will be the ac- 

 cepted belief in the future, \.\\2X flavitncdea and lineatella are one 

 species not distinct from ornithogalli, Guen. The larvae, so far as 

 I have bred material, are extremely variable and not separable, 

 and the same may be said of the mature insects. They are more 

 readily separable from the typical Commelince, though doubts^ 

 even as to their specific distinctness from it are justifiable. 



