[96] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 



The figures ou our Plate IV, 7a, -^ere kiudly copied for us by Mr. Edwin Sheppard, 

 from the copy of the Zutrage in the library of the American Entomological Society. 

 The coloring has been slightly lightened in the printing, but otherwise shows the 

 figures very well as they appear in that copy. In the copy in Dr. Hagen's possession,* 

 as also in that which we have lately obtained for the Department of Agriculture, the 

 figures are somewhat darker; but all are uniform in those particulars which we have 

 just pointed out, and in which they differ from xylina. Hence, a careful and candid 

 study of the subject, so far as Hiibner's work permits, leaves very grave doubt as to 

 the identity of his argillacea, and though from the fact that we had accepted Grote's 

 determination in the first edition of this work (solely on his authority) we have tried 

 to retain it rather than make a change in this second edition; yet an unbiased weigh- 

 ing of the facts presented by the published data would alone have forced us to reject 

 argillacea. AVe are entirely of Dr. Hagen's mind, as expressed in a letter written to 

 ns April 4, 1883, after fall studj' of the facts, and before he was aware of our previ- 

 ously published opinion to the same effect. He remarks : "Compared with Say's ex- 

 cellent description, I believe it out of question not to accept Say's name, which has 

 priority." 



Forced thus from the published data to reject argillacea on the groundof uncer- 

 tainty, we have endeavored to reach a definite conclusion from non-published, 

 historical data, i.e., by an endeavor to ascertain whether types of Hiibner's argillacea 

 were still in existence. Dr. Hagen kindly informed us, in a letter dated April 12, 

 1883, that since argillacea was described from the collection of the late Mr. Sommer, 

 of Altona near Hamburg, it might perhaps be possible to find the type specimen still 

 in that collection, as Mr. Sommer had his collection specimens kept in very good 

 order. The Sommer collection was supposed to have been purchased by the Museum 

 of the city of Hamburg, but upon inquiry we were informed by Mr. C. Criiger, who 

 was formerly connected with the Museum Godeff'roy of Hamburg, that the collection 

 had long since been purchased by Dr. Staudinger, of Blase wicz near Dresden. Hav- 

 ing thus traced the Sommer collection, we directed Mr. A. Koebele to proceed, with 

 specimens, to Germany, and to visit Dresden and inquire into the facts. With the 

 kind permission of Dr. Staudinger, Mr. Koebele was able to make an examination of 

 the Sommer collection, but the results gave us no greater certainty ; for from the 

 notes made it would appear that very few of the labels in the Sommer collection are 

 written by Sommer. The collection is, also, in great disorder, and has been neglected 

 by Dr. Staudinger. Of the eight specimens of our xylina in the collection one is 

 marked from Panama, another from Porto Rico ; one is named " Anomis grandipuncta 

 Guen.," another, unspread $ specimen " ar^iZZacea Hbn., and a third '^ A. grandis." 

 If there were any way of considering these labels authoritative the evidence might 

 be considered in favor of our xylina being Hiibner's argillacea, but from all the facts 

 it is evident that the labeling, has been' done by other hands, and there is other 

 evidence to weaken the value of those labels. Thus the type of argillacea is distinctly 

 stated by Hiibner to be male, so that the female above referred to could not be the 

 type, which must also have been spread to have permitted the artist to fully figure 

 the upper and under surfaces of all wings. Again in the Sommer collection there are 

 eight si^ecimens of a closely allied moth — the Anomis luridula Guen^e, of which one is 

 labeled ''luridaia?" and a secDud ''■ modesta^' and a third ''exacta." The species is 

 quite unlike the exacta of Hiibner's figures, so that we have here positive evidence of 

 the worthlessness of the labels as historical indications of Hiibner's types. 



Note 3 (p. 5). — It may seem strange, but nevertheless there is no j)ublished detailed 

 description of the earlier states of this insect that is at all full and accurate, or that 

 will permit the entomologist to discriminate between the species and some of its closer 

 relations. Say's original description of the imago is sufficiently full and satisfactory, 



*This copy, as Dr. Hagen informs us, is on ''geschopftes Papier" with what is 

 known as old coloring in good condition. 



