no 



is the most magnificent of early iconographs ; Boisduval praises 

 it as the finest illustrated work on the sublect. Until I know 

 that it is discarded as worthless for synonymy I shall quote it ; I 

 shall even quote it in lists as long as I live. The figures are 

 superb, easy to recognize, much better than Dr. Harris' descrip- 

 tions. Hubner does not give us S. macu/ata as caroii'na, but 

 recognizes it as distinct under the name of Celeiis, which I should 

 keep, but S. maciilata is credited to Haworth and his work is said 

 to be earlier. I have not seen it. 



As to the date of Amyntor, I supposed (I have not the work 

 now, it is in the Buffalo Society Library) I quoted the the right 

 volume for it ; if by any slip I have placed ' II ' for ' III,' it might 

 occur in proofs or by my own inadvertence. It is at any rate older 

 than Quadricornis. Dr. Hagen is not ' sure ;' and this seems to be 

 his state of mind on several lepidopterological matters. The mis- 

 take of the number of the volume is not as great as Dr. Hagen's 

 incorrect date of Ochsenheimer (see preface to second part of 

 Check List, 1886). But my memory is that the figure in our 

 copy is next to Chersis, which Dr. Hagen acknowledges is rightly 

 given as Vol. II. Dr. Harris did not know Hubner's works and 

 described ail his species. Hubner is very exact and makes no 

 mistakes, even in our North American Arctias. 



With our copy Dr. Herrich-Schaeffer gave some memoranda 

 of dates, from which I took the following note, printed in the 

 Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1874, Nov. 

 " The plate of this species {Lioia), Band 2, Exot. Schm., is wrongly 

 dated " 1806" by Dr. Packard. It is later than the " Verzeich- 

 niss." In a letter dated September 29, 1866, Dr. Herrich-Schaeffer 

 gave the following dates to [certain plates of] the third volume of 

 the Sammlung; " C<2sipJi07ic to kuntera, 1828 ; Asclepias to rustica, 

 1829; lo to taygete, 1S30; pasithoe, grimmia, 1831 ; crista to bel- 

 tras, 1832 ; riese to tJiirza, 1833 ; debora-hylas, 1834; lusca-Jmebneri, 

 1835." I have not the memo, now, but as I recollect this date is 

 the latest for any plates of Hubner's Exot. Samml. I have 

 already printed the statement that Dr. Harris referred Epimenis 

 to the genus Brepha, in pencil, in his extras of his paper in 

 Silliman's Journal, which is thus later than any plates of Hubner. 

 To speak of Hubner's work, as Dr. Hagen has done, it must first 

 be shown that it has been rejected and the species re-named by 

 unanimous consent. The contrary seems to be the case. This is 

 the first I hear that Hubner's species in his beautiful and costly 

 work are to be rejected. But Hubner's European work, as I 

 remember, has not much text. Yet all lepidopterists in Europe 

 adopt his names. To put Dr. Hagen's ipse dixit into force would 

 oblige a change in the synonymy too great to contemplate with- 

 out a shudder and not worth while to save two names of Dr. 

 Harris's. It amounts, practically, to ruling Hubner out altogether, 

 for, though we might keep some of the names, other authors 

 would have to be cited. 



