THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 179 
information from Mr. Moschler, unites 4. guenselii Geyer and A. gelida 
Moschler, cited separate in our “List.” This correction, coming from 
the author of the synonym, is doubtless of value, but we have no 
responsibility in the matter nor did we “ fall into any error.” If Mr. 
Strecker will refer to the two names in the List, he will find them followed 
by a dash (—), and from our preface he may gather the information that 
this dash indicates that we do not know the species and are not to be 
held accountable for their value. Next, Mr. Strecker (undoubtedly on 
the strength of Mr. Moschler’s letters) says we fell into the same error 
with regard to Arctia parthenos Harris, and Arctia borealis Moschler. Mr. 
Strecker should have read my statement that the two were probably 
identical, published in the Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., pp. 74 and 537 (1864). 
The species were, however, described as distinct by Professor Packard 
and the names are kept separate on this authority in the List; Jdorealis 
being followed by a dash, since we do not know it as distinct from far- 
lhenos. At the time of describing dorealis, Mr. Moschler did not know 
that Harris had described an allied species, nor in describing speciosa, that 
Kirby had described wrsuncula, since he does not allude to them; but 
perhaps, after all, the species described by Moschler from Labrador, may 
be distinct ; at least it is yet an open question whether they are so or not. 
Where is ows “error,” then, with respect to these species of Arctia ? 
With only partial quotation of our remarks, Mr. Strecker unites our 
luteola from Quebec with cordigera from Lapland. We had only mystelli 
in nature for comparison, and judged of cordigera by description when we 
described /xfeola. That we judged the American to be a near ally of the 
European species is evident from ourremark that it ‘“ @fcars to represent 
the European cordigera in our fauna.” Now, that Mr. Strecker has 
received from Europe specimens of cerdigera and compared them with 
Zuteola, and finds no difference, it becomes probable that they are the same 
species. This information is very interesting in a distributional point of 
view. 
To conclude this notice I will draw attention to Mr. Strecker’s 
repeated remarks that “ great confusion exists with regard to the species 
of Catocala.” These are not true of the most prominent collections of 
that genus. There is but little uncertainty about our species, and that 
with regard to the limits of a very few of them. I have determined 
during the last ten years nearly all material in this genus, sent to me 
from Canada, to Georgia, and all of Mr. Strecker’s determinations have 
