195 



doubt that in eleven instances (of which I j^ive a list bdovv), 

 these types were obtained from Mr. F. P. Dodd, and that in 

 every instance the locality label attached to the specimen, 

 which was the same as the published locality, did not cor- 

 respond to the locality from which the specimen was obtain- 

 ed.''^ My reasons for coming to this conclusion were: — 



(1) These specimens were mostly obscure species of 



Phyrifincr not likely to be obtained from the ordi- 

 nary collector, but all of them had been sent to 

 me by Mr. Dodd, and most of them were, so far as 

 T knew, not obtainable from any other source. 

 Mr. Lower had obtained to my knowledge many 

 moths from Mr. Dodd. 



(2) The specimens were mostly bred specimens in perfect 



condition. No other collector in Australia has 

 done much work in breeding Phi/rifimr. 



(3) The condition of the specimens, their method of 



pinning and setting, and in some instances the 

 peculiar kind of pin employed, exactly corres- 

 ponded to Mr. Dodd's specimens. 



Though this evidence was sufficiently cogent for my own 

 mind, I thought it advisable to submit the specimens to Mr. 

 Dodd, who recognized them as having been obtained from 

 himself. Mr. Dodd usually attaches locality labels to his 

 specimens, giving the locality, date, and collector's name. On 

 being questioned by me as to this point, he replied that many 

 of the specimens received by Mr. Lower from him (shortly 

 before the publication of the descriptions) were so labelled. 

 Some he had not labelled, but Mr. Lower, in taking them, 

 undertook to affix the labels himself. 



The first specimen in the followdug list was sent to me 

 as the type of Averastr/a xiphimela. Low., but, as I have 

 already mentioned (P.R.S.Q., 1903. p. 119), I was unable to 

 consider it the real type, as it did not correspond exactly to 

 the description, and did not belong to the same genus as that 

 in which Sir George Hampson, who had examined all these 

 types, had placed the original. It seems to me more likely 

 that Mr. Lower substituted another insect, which he believed 

 to be the same species, than that Sir George TTampson should 

 have made a mistake in the genus : — 



*I have already referred to this (hsc-overv fP.'R.S.Q.. 190:^. pp. 110, 

 126, 132). 



