44 



/. Agrotis jaadifera. This (Mo. Rep. I, p. 82) neither in- 

 cludes tricosa Lintner, nor hertlis Gr., but, as stated in the 

 " General Index," (^p. 56), \.\\& \.xv\(t siibgothica, Haw. Mr. Grote 

 was formerly of this belief, too,* and, it may be of interest to 

 state, in this connection, that upon sending plate I, of my first 

 Mo. Rep. for his opinion of the various species figured thereon, 

 prior to publication, he replied from Danopolis, Ala., by date of 

 March 17, 1869: " No. 11 \'s> A. subgothica of which A. jaadifera 

 is a synonym." In the "General Index " I have simply stated the 

 fact, without further comment, that, subsequent to the publica- 

 tion of the first Missouri Report, fig 59<?, had been described as 

 herilis by Mr. Grote, and 59^, as tricosa by Mr. Lintner. It may 

 be as well for me here to record my firm belief that we have to 

 do in this instance with mere variations of one species, and that 

 Guenee and the older authors were wiser in so considering them 

 than the later authors in separating them as distinct species. I 

 fully appreciate the care with which Mr. Lintner has separated 

 the three well marked forms, but with every year that I have 

 been able to get additional material for comparison, I have been 

 more and more convinced of the correctness of the view here ex- 

 pressed, and that between the typical S2tbgothica on the one hand, 

 and herilis on the other, there is a perfect series, so that it is im- 

 possible, in some instances, to refer specimens to any one form 

 more than another. 



To sum up, I maintain that Mr. Grote, where he is not 

 actually wrong in his conclusions, or opposed to men whom he 

 himself acknowledges as authorities, simply repeats what I had 

 six months previously published; further, that the present syn- 

 onym of the species described in the Mo. Reports was Jiot known 

 at the time of the descriptions, and that if, as he avers, the species 

 were " known to science," the blame for the synonym falls pc^^'ly 

 on him who, claiming special knowledge in the family, was not 

 aware of the fact when the moths were referred to him. 



Opinions as to the relations of such forms as Agrotis herilis,- 

 and A. tricosa, Prodenia lincatella and P. flaviviedia will differ accord- 

 ing to the conception of what constitutes a species, and there is all 

 the less reason for dogmatism. However I may differ from the 

 describers of those forms as species, I recognize the value of their 

 work in separating the forms and the convenience of designating 

 them by names. "In the field of [science no less than of] 

 thought and literature it is no less our duty to speak and write in 

 such a way that comprehension and knowledge may be increased 

 by our labors without offense being given, "f and, I would add, in 

 such way that practice comport with preaching. 



I reserve remarks on Dakruma for another occasion. 



* Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. S. I., p. loo. 



t " The New Infidelity," by A. R. Grcte, p. 91. 



