oe GROTE—GORTYNA AND ALLIED GENERA. [May 4, 
Out of his own knowledge the author of the revision says: 
‘« Hydrecia was first used by Guenée in 1857, in his essay on the 
classification of the Noctuide,’’ etc. This statement should be 
noted, because it illustrates the methods employed by Prof. John 
B. Smith to support his generic determinations. Guenée estab- 
lished Hydrecta not in his Essay itself, not in 1857, perhaps a mis- 
print for 1837, but in 1841, in the Zadex Method., all published in 
the Annales. 
As to the statement that I ever ‘‘ finally ’’ followed example and 
adopted Hydrecia, the references to my last lists under Gortyna, 
show its want of truth. Parallel statements to these and indirect 
contradictions make up the introduction to the revision of <Acro- 
nycta likewise. These introductions do not contain objective 
scientific facts, but are written solely to contradict or violently 
color my actions in the several instances and are simply nosegays 
of unconscionable and worthless statements, bound together by the 
one ruling idea that my authority should be broken down, cowtfe 
qui coute. In this case it is fair to presume the author never had 
the essay in his hands, and intended to copy Guenée’s technically 
incorrect reference in the Species Général. There is something 
painfully morbid about Prof. Smith’s writings, a constant troubling 
himself with what I did or did not do; their publication is less a 
contribution to the knowledge of the American Noctuids than a 
proof of his ability to misrepresent and twist the facts with regard to 
my writings. And, when this Doctor of Science does not hesitate 
to affirm: that a pupa of Hudryas grata, having been conveyed 
accidentally across the Atlantic, disclosed in London a moth of 
£. Stae. johannis, and this owing to the ‘‘ vicissitudes of the voy- 
age,’’ a want of causality not beaten by Aldrovandus, and a@// this 
merely because I had innocently recognized the distinctness of the 
two species in 1868 and 1882, then I think the limits of idiosyn- 
crasy are overstepped, and we have arrived at the borderland of 
pathology. It never seems to occur to Prof. Smith that Iam not 
interested that my statements should be adopted by him, but that 
they should be correct. 
1852. Guenée, Spec. Gen., 5, 125: Nictitans, lorea, cuprea, vin- 
delicia, micacea, immanis, stramentosa. 
Lorea has been referred by Herrich-Schaeffer to Wamestra; it has 
hairy eyes. Guenée now indicates as type mcacea, but this choice is 
