81 



page 249 of the report, as to the species being carried in the chrysalis form with the salt 

 hay from the coast. On the larva of Hyphantria textor, Dr. Fitch adds : " It here 

 infests the bitter walnut most, and the swamp oak nearly as much." Of the females of 

 Orgyia lexicostigma , Dr. Fitch says, "They have a dusky dorsal vitta." Dr. Fitch 

 makes no remark upon Harris's Dasychira leucophcea, which is probably incorrectly 

 identified. It appears also that the moth determined in the Harris collection as achatina 

 is not that species but Clintoni. Nor are there any marginalia to Lagoa opercularis, 

 which, from the description, is not Abbot's species but perhaps L. crispata. In fact 

 Harris, not unfrequently but mistakenly, identifies allied Southern forms, figured in the 

 insects of Georgia with New England species, as first pointed out by Dr. Packard. Dr. 

 Harris thinks also that L. opercularis [i.e. crispata ?) may be the Bombyx Americana of 

 Fabricus. Dr. Fitch further notes to Clisiocampa Americana (larva), that, " Their lives 

 ■consist of repetitions of three acts, eating, sleeping and enlarging or adding to their 

 nests ; in fine weather they often repose outside of the nest, lying side by side, closely 

 stowed." To Gastropacha Americana, Dr. Fitch adds : "I found this on the white oak 

 in the middle of July in Stillwater, Md." To the account of Dryocampa imperialis, Dr. 

 Fitch adds, " On the pines around Philadelphia abundant (T. B. Ashton) locally called 

 the * Pine Moth.' " With a criticism of Harris's expression " especially behind the tip " 

 in the description of Perophora Melsheimeri, p. 301, the marginalia come to an end. 

 I have fancied, myself, that the Spinner moths belong to the east and north, in the 

 same way that the Hawk moths belong to the south, the Owlet moths to the West of 

 North America. In fact several species seem to be alpine or sub-alpine, and when we 

 regard the protective cocoon and the frequent woolliness of the moths, one would con- 

 sider the family fitted for resisting the cold. But it is in reality very generally distri- 

 buted, and this is a proof of its long existence as a group. The Ghost moths, or Hepi- 

 alinaz are represented over the globe with but little structural variation, retaining in 

 Australasia the general peculiar form which they display in Europe, California, Massa- 

 chusetts and Brazil. I believe, therefore, that this particular sub-family of the Spinner 

 moths is ancient and has survived many physical changes of the earth's surface. The 

 typical Spinner moths, such as the Attacina?, seem wanting in the West India Islands, 

 from whence also I have seen no Ceratocampinaz. This is a noteworthy observation in 

 geographical distribution. I have also noted that the Geratocampinai, or Hawk Em- 

 peror moths, are found over the level country, east of the Pocky Mountains and Andes, 

 not crossing the mountains to the Pacific as it would seem. By a strict comparison of 

 the faunae of the West India Islands and the continent of North America, some addi- 

 tional light may be thrown on the physical history of these portions of America. 



Dr. Harris is an author whom we can conscientiously recommend to students of 

 either technical or economic Entomology, for in the report the two departments of ento- 

 mological science are not separated ; it was hardly time for that ; but they must be 

 finally separated, and I have always deprecated the mixing up of technical entomology, 

 in the reports of State entomologists, with economic entomology, their proper subject. 

 Descriptions of new species, opinions as to matters of special classification and nomencla- 

 ture, all these, with which the technical entomologist deals, are out of place in State 

 reports. What the State intends to pay for is a history of injurious insects and a dis- 

 cussion of the best means to prevent them. There is then a certain abuse of their posi- 

 tion involved in the introduction by official entomologists of extraneous matter in their 

 reports. For technical work we have the proceedings of the various societies, the pages 

 of the well-known Canadian Entomologist. It was, indeed, the opinion of Agassiz, that 

 names to secure adoption should be published in works offered for sale. There exists, 

 then, some doubt whether technical entomologists should pay attention to reports which 

 are simply distributed and thus not generally accessible. The question here comes up as 

 to the publication of authoritative names in technical entomology. The sole criterion 

 seems to be the recognisability of the object intended. Names for genera are sufficiently 

 legitimized by the statement of the type. The type, an already described species, is 

 something of which science has already cognizance, something known. When we reflect 

 how unequal the generic formulas are, how opinions differ, how rarely, at least formerly, 

 the intimate structural features are given, the justice of this simple rule becomes appar- 



6 (EN.) 



