THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



[77 



their bees at a prescribed distance from 

 orchards and vineyards. 



We note, from the Pacific Rural Press, 

 that the following bill has been introduced 

 in the Assembly by Mr. Adams of Sonoma, 

 providing for the extermination of insects 

 in orchards and vineyards : 



The Board of Supervisors in the several coun- 

 ties of this State are hereby authorized and re- 

 quired, when application is made in writing by 

 five legal voters of any voting precinct in the 

 county, to appoint a commission of such number 

 as they shall deem necessary, to inspect fruit trees 

 and vines within the district for which they shall 

 have been appointed, and in case disease of any 

 kind be found among said trees or vines, or any- 

 thing detrimental to the growth and prosperity of 

 such trees or vines, said commission may order 

 such action taken for the removal of such vines, 

 or otherwise, as they may deem necessary for the 

 public good; provided, that such commission 

 shall serve without compensation, and the labor 

 necessary to comply with their recommendations 

 shall be at the expense of the owner of the 

 property. 



The last provisions will certainly render 

 the law nugatory. 



We are gratified to be able to state that 

 Congress appropriated $25,000 for com- 

 pleting the work of the U. S. Entomologi- 

 cal Commission, under the Interior De- 

 partment. For the first time since the 

 creation of the Commission the .full appro- 

 priation asked for in the estimates has 

 been made, and we doubtless owe this suc- 

 cess in some measure to the persistent 

 opposition of General W. G. LeDuc, Com- 

 missioner of Agriculture, and Prof. J. Henry 

 Comstock, the Entomologist of said De- 

 partment. We find no fault with General 

 LeDuc for his attempt to divert the appro- 

 priation to his Department, though we have 

 no sympathy with the methods he em- 

 ployed in his endeavors. Of Mr. J. Henry 

 Comstock's conduct in this connection we 

 may have further occasion to speak. The 

 course of these gentlemen is sufificiently 

 condemned in the fact that they have 

 been frustrated in their efforts. 



Our Book Notices and acknowledgments 

 are this month crowded out. 



Errata. — Page 156, col. 2, line 4, insert 

 a comma after " genus." 



Extracts from Correspondence, 



Pronuba vs. Prodoxus. — I have been much 

 interested in your remarks in the last number 

 about Pronnba, etc. I described Hyponotneuta 

 l^-pziiictella from 8 captured specimens received 

 from Mr. Belfrage, in which I found no variation. 

 The larva and its habits being unknown I referred 

 it to Hyponomeuta, as I detected no points of dif- 

 ference from that genus which I deemed of gen- 

 eric value. Under the same circumstances I 

 should still refer it to Hyponotneuta, but the larva 

 and habit described by yoxx make such a reference 

 clearly improper. If, therefore, your Prodoxus de- 

 cipiens is identical with my H. '-i-puncteHa, as you 

 state — and which I have not now the means of de- 

 termining for myself — you are very certainly right 

 in defining for it the new genus Prodoxus. As 

 to the specific name decipiens (if it is the same 

 species as '-,-punctelld), it is (since you find the 

 species so variable) certainly more appropriate 

 than <^-puncteUa, since it seems not only to have, 

 one way or another deceived me, but you also, 

 as well as Mr. Boll and Dr. Hagen. If, therefore, 

 the species are the same, it should be called Pro- 

 doxus decipiens, unless the specific nzme pa7-adox- 

 ica, suggested for it by me in the paper in 

 the Cincinnati Journal, takes priority over 

 decipiens. 



Approaching so nearly as your P. decipiens 

 does to Pronuba yuccasella, according to your 

 account, I have no doubt that my Colorado spe- 

 cimens found in Yucca flowers and in company 

 of P. yuccasella, were that species ; and the larva 

 and its habits being then unknown, it was more 

 natural and reasonable for me to suppose that 

 yuccasella was sometimes spotted, than that I had 

 before me another species so closely allied to it 

 in structure, ornamentation, and habitat ; and 

 therefore I probably did not examine the speci- 

 mens carefully enough to detect the difference. 

 At any rate, your discovery shows that I was 

 right in arguing, in the Cincinnati paper, from 

 the habits, habitat, etc., of the specimens, that if 

 it was not Pronuba it could not be Hyponomeuta. 

 As you suggest (?w lit.), we botli are right 

 and both are wrong. I must diflTer from 

 you, however, as to Pronuba and Prodoxus 

 belonging to the Tineidce. I consider them as 

 connecting the Tineidce and HyponomeutidcE, to 

 which latter family I believe Prof. Zeller refers 

 Pronuba. — V. T. Chambers, Covington, Ky. 



[We entirely agree with all that Mr. Chambers 

 says, even to the statement that Prodoxus and 

 Pronuba connect the Tineida and Hyponomeutidce. 

 But such osculant forms are always turning up, 

 and unless the characters are sufficiently striking 

 and unique to warrant the formation of a new 

 Family, it is always best to place the species in 

 that family with which they have greatest affinity 

 and most resemblances. As to the specific name 

 decipiens, the future catalogue-maker or list-maker 

 if he be a stickler for priority, will be warranted 

 in retaining the name of ^-piinctella Cham., how- 

 ever misleading it may be, and considering deci- 

 piens a good variety name for the immaculate 

 form. The further facts we add in this number 

 will show that the deceptive points of general 

 resemblance which Prodoxus bears to Pronuba, 



