1 68 



p. 152: " A careful study of his (Mr. Edwards' ) statements about C. 

 Philodice, apparently justifies the doubt if other species, some described 

 after a few specimens, are (to be) accepted as reliable species, the more 

 so when the females are considered as belonging to males ONLY tor 

 the reason that they arrived in the same lot." 



On p. 163: "This species ( Orz^/ma ; is described after 4 c? i 9 

 taken at the Portage of the Slave River. That the female belongs to 

 the male seems to be assumed MERELY from the fact that both ar- 

 rived in the same lot." 



On p. 168: "Such SPURIOUS SPECIES, based upon one or three 

 or a {&\\ more specimens, eveii without any reliable proof that the males 

 and females belong together, must be rejected by science, as long as 

 their validity has not been shown in an incontestable manner by equall}^ 

 careful experiments as those for Eurythemey 



Now in view of these assertions and of this criticism it will naturally 

 be interesting to see how a scientific professor works, and if his method 

 be commendable, the juniors in all branches of Entomology will do 

 well to take lesson from it. 



Let us look into the history of this Trans-Continental expedition so 

 far as concerns the Entomological Division. The author of the paper 

 quoted from was the leader, himself a veteran Neuropterist, and was 

 accompanied by Mr. Stretch, an experienced Lepidopterist, and Mr. 

 Henshaw, Coleopterist. In the Report on the Butterflies ot Wash. 

 Terr., which appeared in Papilio, vol. 2, December, 1882, on p. 149, 

 we are told that the collection of butterflies made by Mr. Henshaw and 

 Mr. Stretch is large, etc. On p. 160: "WE collected at Yakima City, 

 on milk- weed, 4 ^ 4 ? of Rutulus.'" All specimens were collected 

 from June 24th to July 26th. On p. 150: "The preparation and 

 spreading of the butterflies has only been commenced" (when the Re- 

 port, printed in December, was written). 



Any one reading these reports or papers would understand from 

 them that their author must ha\'e observed more or less the butterflies 

 treated of as they flew, if he did not take part of them with his own 

 hand, and must have been conversant with whatever w-as going on 

 through his associates; and when he declares that certain males were 

 taken in copulation w-ith certain females, either saw it himself or was 

 so informed that there could be no mistake about the matter. The 

 personal observations of a collector in the field are of great value, es- 

 pecially where the question of the validity of a species arises, and when 

 an experienced entomologist, even though not a Lepidopterist, told that 

 on this trip six females, Colias, had been taken in copulation, that in 

 one case the pair was male Philodice ( supposed to be Chrysomelas, as 

 there are no Philodice in that region) and female Edzvardsii; that more 

 than one female Christina was taken with males Edzvardsii, strange as 

 it seemed, I for one had to admit the facts, though of course not the 



