June, '04] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 22l 



Notonecta lutea Miill. is about the size and shape of Notonecta irrorata 

 Uhler, but somewhat more convex in appearance, the dorsum being 

 strongly arched. It approaches the latter bug also in the shape of the 

 head and notocephalic outline. However, the entirely luteous color 

 except in the costal margin of the corium, which has a dark strip, will at 

 once distinguish it. In a paper in preparation will be given tables for 

 separation of this insect and the other members of the genus. — ^J. R. de 

 LA Torre Bueno, New York, N. Y. 



I have read with interest the comments and criticisms of Holland's 

 Moth Book, and would like to add a few more of my own. 



Plate xxiv, fig. 34, is diffusa, not albilinea. PI. xxvi, figs. 8 and 9, 

 should be reversed both in the reference to plate and also in the text. 

 Fig. 5 of same plate is not inquczsUa . It is inipecutiiosa. 



Plate xxx, fig. 15, is most probably erechtea instead of crassiuscula, 

 Plate xxii, figs. 23 and 26, represent 9 and d^ Feltia vohibilis. This is 

 all correct, only that, as the gray form is represented in one figure and 

 the red-brown form in the other, it would give the novice the idea that 

 the difference in color indicated the sex, which it does not, for I have 

 both sexes in both colors. By the way, why has no varietal name been 

 used to separate these very distinct forms ? Hundreds of species much 

 less worthy of such distinction have been named. Morrison, I believe, 

 considered them to be distinct species, and named the dark form stig- 

 rnosa. Why can't this be used to-day ? They are as well marked and 

 separate as any two forms that I know of. 



On page 337 Holland perpetuates Dyar's singular mistake in making 

 Epelis /ax.inii a synonym of E. truncataria. There seems no good rea- 

 son for such a mistake, for the two species are not at all alike. 



On page 132, I cannot accept without protest his lumping Apantesis 

 nais, vittata, phalerata and radians as forms of one thing, and dropping 

 the name nais entirely. 1 have never seen one of which I had any doubt 

 as to its identity. He says he has bred all forms from the same larvae. 

 I don't believe he ever got moths with black costa from parents with 

 yellow costa. The black costa separates nais at a glance when other 

 marks fail. 



I also do not believe that Apantesis rectihnea and phyllira are any- 

 thing more than forms of one thing, and yet Holland, following Dyar's 

 list, has placed such totally unlike things as arge, achaia, virguncuia, 

 etc., between them. They differ in nothing except in the presence or 

 or absence of white veins in fore wings, and this is a very variable quan- 

 tity, and with specimens enough I feel sure a complete gradation from 

 one to the other could be shown. 



There are many other minor errors of locality and orthography that I 

 might mention, but this is already too long, so I will refrain from further 

 comments. — E. J. Smith, Natick, Mass. 



