August 1S96.] 



PSYCHE. 



413 



northern Atlantic district, although he 

 had Florida material from Doubleday, 

 and Georgia material probably origi- 

 nally from Norvvich or even Abbot. 

 Persuasa must be compared with 

 Guenee's description to check this refer- 

 ence. But extremely doubtful seems 

 to me Butler's identification of longa 

 with brumosa. and it is doubtful to its 

 author. Again we are asked to believe 

 that Guen^e redescribed his own species. 

 Did Guenee write his three volumes 

 with one collection before him, or did 

 he merely edit descriptions made at 

 difTerent times, returning his types in 

 the meanwhile so that the possii)ility of 

 such mistakes becomes credible.- Mv 

 belief is that the former is the fact, 

 hence these mistakes become incredible 

 to me. The impression I have is that 

 we ought to refer vcrrillii to brumosa., 

 and Walker's two names as shown by 

 me in the Illustrated Essay as further 

 svnonvms, restoring persuasa to its 

 author. But in my lists. I have felt 

 bound to follow Mr. Butler. 



The svnonvmv given in the Cata- 

 logue of Prof. Smith of americana is 

 unintelligible to me. since hastulifera 

 A. & S. and acericola A. & S. are cited 

 also as distinct, \vhile I have shown 

 that Guenee's hastulifera is americana '. 

 Ditferent localities are given to the 

 three, whereas I know of but one 

 species, viz., americana. which Har- 

 ris considered to be aceris A. & S. 

 (^acericola Guen.). Guenee, who 

 did not know Hariis' work, described 

 americana as Abbot's ^aj/// ///era and 

 proposed the name acericola instead of 



Abbot's aceris, which he did not iden- 

 tity. Hence the sj'nonymy (I leave 

 Walker out of the question) runs thus : 

 americana Harris ^hastulifera Guen. 

 nee A. & S., leaving Abbot's two spe- 

 cies unidentified. As Abbot's aceris 

 is certainly not the European species, 

 this must be called acericola Guen,, if 

 identified as distinct from americana 

 and hastulifera. Whether there is 

 reallv more than one species is doubtful : 

 but, in any case. Abbot's two species 

 must be identified from Georgia larvae 

 (since the moths are badly drawn, or 

 rather too difficult to distinguish from 

 plates made under the circumstances). 

 Harris thought the larva of aceris 

 agreed with the lar\'a of his americana, 

 hence his reference of Abbot's species 

 as identical with his own. Guenee, 

 who had no larva (of americana) , 

 thought that the figure of the moth of 

 hastulifera represented our northern 

 species alreadj' described as americana 

 bv Harris, and made the identification. 

 As regards the two plates of Abbot, 

 Guenee and Harris are at cross pur- 

 poses, but in any event have only one 

 species in nature before them, viz., 

 americana. The references in Prof. 

 Smith's catalogue give the impression 

 as if three distinct species had been 

 identified and my speculation that the 

 larvae had perhaps been transposed by 

 Abbot, to account for the opposite 

 identifications of Harris and Guenee, is 

 adopted. I repeat, until Abbot's species 

 are made out beyond peradventure from 

 Georgia material, all speculation is 

 futile. 



