1S93] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 189 



Others recorded from time to time. — 8. Macrotelia Jloridana 

 Ashm. [L. O. Howard]; one found on a window at Manchester 

 Cottage, Kingston. — 9. Smicra femorata Fab.; there is a speci- 

 men from Jamaica in the British Museum marked ►S. punctata Fb. , 

 Avhich, according to Mr. Kirby (In. Linn. Soc. 1882, p. 66), is a 

 synonym o{ femorata. However, Mr. Kirby considers ^. nigro- 

 pida Cress., which has been recorded from Jamaica by Mr. Fox, 

 also a synonym oi femorata. — 10. Tapinoma m,elanocephalus Fab. 

 [Riley]; in decaying tamarinds, East Street, Kingston; and on 

 corn (Z(fa) in Kingston. 



The authorities for the identification of the species are given in 

 square brackets after the describers. This method of citation is 

 new or unusual, but I would venture to suggest its adoption by 

 writers who have insects identified for them. It is only fair to 

 those who identify species, that they should get the credit due to 

 them, and further, the value of a list is greatly increased when 

 we know who is responsible for the identifications. This being 

 granted, the method here employed has the advantage of clear- 

 ness and brevity. When no authority is cited in this way, it 

 should be assumed that the writer identified his own species, or 

 that the records are not new. When the record refers only to 

 specimens cotnparedhy the writer with other specimens identified 

 by a specialist, it is not fair to cite the specialist as authority, 

 since the writer might have made some mistake. 



Two weeks in Richmond County, North Carolina. 



By Frank M. Jones, Wilmington, Del. 



In the March number of the News is given a list of the Le- 

 pidoptera captured by Messrs. Skinner and Laurent in Mitchell 

 County, North Carolina, between the dates of July 7th and 21st, 

 One month later, I collected for a similar length of time in Rich- 

 mond County in the south central part of the same State, and for 

 a few hours in the vicinity of Wilmington, N. C, and as the in- 

 sect fauna of the one locality (Mitchell County) is that of the 

 mountains, and of the other that of the warm and moist lowlands, 

 a comparison of the species met with may be of interest. 



The soil of Richmond County is extremely sandy, and but 

 little of the land is tmder cultivation. Although a greater va- 

 riety of trees are to be found in the moist hollows and along the 



