THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 245 



THE GEOMETRID^: IN "THE MOTH BOOK." 



BY REV. G. W. TAYLOR, WELLINGTON, B. C. 



It seems a little ungracious to call attention to errors in so excellent 

 a work as " The Moth Book," and presumptuous for a novice to criticise 

 so eminent an authority as its author, but perhaps it is as well for the 

 sake of the many amateur collectors who will name their captures from 

 Dr. Holland's beautiful plates that the few mistakes that seem to have 

 crept in should be pointed out. 



There are four plates upon which species of Geometridce are figured, 

 and I think that in a few cases the names attached to the figures ought to 

 be changed. 



On Plate XLIL, figure 25 represents Alsophila pometaria, not 

 Paleacrita vernata. Figure 32 on the same plate is Macaria infimata, 

 as pointed out by Dr. Dyar in the January number of this journal. I have 

 on several occasions received specimens of M. infimata from eastern 

 collectors as Eicpithecia absynthiata. Figure 49 is Petrophora fiuctuata 

 not Mesoleuca intennediata. 



On Plate XLIIL, figures 10 and 11 represent Hydriomena 

 excurvata = Ceratodalia Gueneata, Packard, not Hydriomena custodiata, 

 which is the Ochyria Gueneata., Packard. Figure 36 seems to be 

 Deilinia erythremaria rather than D. variolaria, and figure 39 represents 

 the European form Philobia notata, and not the western American 

 P. enotata. 



On Plate XLIV., figure 2 is an excellent portrait of the Caripeta 

 seductaria of Strecker, and is not the species figured by Packard in his 

 monograph as C. ajigustiorata, Walker. I possess both species, and 

 they are quite distinct. Figure 32 is, I think, Plagodis alcoolaria, not 

 P. emargataria. 



I may also call attention to the fact that there are some evident 

 misprints in the " Key to the Families," on page 24, which will, I fear, 

 make the use of the key diflScult for beginners. 



Lastly, I may point out that Dr. Holland does Dr. Dyar an injustice, 

 unintentional of course, when he says on page 344 that he has overlooked 

 in his catalogue the Cleora atrifasciata of Hulst, for, as a matter of fact, 

 Dr. Dyar has placed that form just where Dr. Hulst himself (see Ent. 

 News, VI., 43) said it should go, namely, as a synonym of Mesoleuca 

 ivwianata. I must admit that this appears a strange position for a moth 

 described as a Cleora, and as Dr. Holland has the type it is interesting 

 to know his opinion of its specific value. 



