78 BULLETIN BROOKLYN ENTOM. SOC. VOL. V. February esa] 
is untenable, since the species, as I have fully proved* is a permanent 
resident of the United States. he natural history as given in the ‘‘Essay”’ 
is, in the light of recent observations essentially erroneous in ail 
respects except where it deals w:th biological platitudes that where equally 
trite if applied to hundreds of other species. It furnishes no evidence, and, 
indeed, there is no evidence on record, that Mr. Grote ever watched the 
development of any species from the egg to the imago; and this is in 
keeping with the fact that early in his entomological career, he confessedly — 
“abandoned collecting insec!s, even walking carefully so as not to bruise 
the golden rods and purple asters that fringed my path’.** So far as 
Anomis xylina (Say.) is concerned he has never added a single fact 
in relation to its habits not previously recorded, and the above con- 
fession, together with the evidence in his writings and his occupation 
while a resident of Alabama, all go to show that no serious observations 
were ever made by him in the field other than those made in 1878 under 
my direction. eR 
Similarly misleading is Mr. Grote’s statement that he was editor. 
of the Pra-ticul Entomologist ‘‘for the first few numbers to be succeeded 
by the late B.D. Walsh’. The article *‘Cawz Bono?” consists of 14 lines, 
and the paper was edited by the publication committee of the Entomo- 
logical Society of Philadelphia, consisting of three members (Mr. Blake 
whom Mr. Grote mentions, not beeing one of them) with Mr. Walsh as 
associate editor after the third number. 
On p. 18 of the ‘‘Essay” Mr. Grote refers to the “rust” of cotton as 
a vegetable parasite, which is another evidence of lack of observation in 
the cotton field since the rust is caused by a mite, There is, on the same 
page, an insinuation that the injuries by the worm are overestimated by 
interested parties. So far as any estimates that I have used are concerned 
they are from the statistician of the Department of Agriculture, and I 
know of no higher authority. Itis, however, on page 19 that the most 
reckless assertions and reflections on myself occur, for they assume the 
form of a personal attack that is pitiable. The only case instanced in 
justification for the abuse is that the assumed discovery by Mr. Townend 
Glover, ‘‘of the attraction presented by the glands of the cotton plant to 
* Tn a paper read before the National Academy of Science last May: see also 
my Ann Rep. as U. S. Entomologist, 1882, p. 106. 
** New Check List of N. A. Moths, p. 5. 
