Mar., '04] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. I05 



The percentage of errors of identification is gratifyingly small. I note 

 the following : 



Plate xlviii, Fig. 24, is Olethreutes nimbatana Clem., and not Platynofa 

 flavedana Clem. Fig. 40. same plate, is not Epagop^e iunicana Wlsm. 

 It is probably Sparganothis senecionana Wlsm. ; but Dr. Holland is not 

 responsible for this error, as there at least three different species in the 

 Washington, Philadelphia and New York museums, all labelled tunicana. 

 I hope to straighten this mix-up very soon. 



Same plate, Fig. 22, Tortrix albicomana Clem, is very unlike the type 

 which is in Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and is a pale yel- 

 low insect. The form figured is rather unusual. 



Pyrausia ochosaHs, Fig. 57, plate xlvii, should be credited to Dyar and 

 not Fitch MSS., as the former described this from Fitch's manuscript in a 

 recent issue of the proceedings of the Washington Entomological Society. 



Several of the generic names used by Dr. Holland differ from Prof. 

 Fernald's latest published list of Pyralids, for what reason I do not know : 

 Zinckenia Zell. for Hynienia Hbn.; Glyphodes Gn. for Diaphania Hbn.; 

 Phlyctcenodes Gn. for Loxostege Hbn ; and he has repeated the error 

 which occurs in both Dyar's Catalog and Smith's 1903 List : Alceris in 

 place of Acleris. 



Loxostege triuniphalis Grt. possesses a melancholy interest, as it is the 

 last or nearly the last North American species described by Grote. The 

 type is in my collection. 



One thing I feel very sorry about in a book that is bound to become so 

 popular with the young collector, and that is the stone wall he has built 

 around the method of expanding and handling these small specimens. 

 Chapter two is principally given up to this subject, and among other im- 

 possible things calls for beveled glass slides — How many collectors, 

 young or old, will go to this trouble and expense ? — and also advocates 

 the very questionable method of holding the wings down with one or 

 more threads. I do not think one specimen out of fifty will dry flat and 

 retain the larger proportion of its scales if set in the manner advised. — 

 W. D. Kearfoot. 



The general acclamation and praise with which Dr. Holland's long 

 expected Moth book has been received are certainly well deserved, and 

 it seems almost hypercritical in the face of the many excellent features 

 which render the book almost indispensable even to the advanced 

 student, to call attention to any defects. Unfortunately there are a few 

 improperly identified figures which, while of no moment to the specialist, 

 would certainly mislead beginners — the very class for whom the book is 

 intended. 



Dr. Dyar has already called attention, in the December issue of the 

 Canadian Entomologist, to several misnamed figures, and I feel it is my 

 duty to point out another, with profound apologies to Dr. Holland. 



Figure i, on Plate VI. is presented as Cocytius antcstis Dr. 9. It is 



