324 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
In the fall of 1846 Mr. Affleck, knowing of Say's name and descrip- 
tion of the moth, wrote to Dr. T. W. Harris, the New England ento- 
mologist, sending specimens of the moth, together with the request that 
he would redescribe it and place it in its proper "modern" genus 
Harris was at a loss, as he had nothing in his collection similar to it, and 
so he forwarded the specimens to Edward Doubleday, a celebrated Eng- 
lish lepidopterist. Doubleday showed the specimens to the London 
Entomological Society, and answered Harris that the species would lit 
in no modern genus, but that it came nearest to Ophiusa. This opinion 
Harris transmitted to Affleck as his own. The whole correspondence 
forms rather an interesting chapter in the history of the Cotton Worm. 
Affleck's original letter to Harris has not, so far as we can find, been 
published ; but the gist of the latter's final reply can be found in an ex- 
cellent article in Affleck's Southern Rural Almanac for 1851, in which the 
moth is designated as Oph iusa (Xoctua) xylina. Harris's letter toDouble- 
day and the latter's reply will be found in Harris' Entomological Cor- 
respondence, Boston, I860, and Doubleday's remarks upon the specimens 
before the London Entomological Society are to be found in the Pro- 
ceedings of that society for 1848. 
Mr. Affleck's article, though short, is an excellent one. In his 1846 
article he had advocated the hibernation of the pupae, but this he now 
rejected, and, from actual observation^published the fact that the moth 
hibernates. He also, in the 1851 article, gives the first figure ever pub- 
lished of a parasite of the Cotton Worm — probably Pimpla conquisitor. 
In 1854 two papers of a certain degree of interest were published. 
B. C. L. Wailes, in his 1854 report on the Agriculture and Geology of 
Mississippi, article Cotton, devoted a short space to the consideration 
of the caterpillar, and accompanied it by a colored plate illustrating the 
different stages. The principal interest of the paper arises from the cu- 
rious mistake which Mr. Wailes made in the scientific name of the moth. 
He calls it Bepressaria gossypioid.es. This name he must have gotten 
from seeing somewhere an account of the East Indian Cotton Boll-worm, 
the Bepressaria gossypiella of Saunders. Still the habits of this insect 
are so different from those of our Cotton Worm that is very difficult to 
see how he could suppose them identical. As for the remainder of the 
article there is nothing in it that is not twenty years behind its time. 
The other 1854 article which we would mention was published by 
Dr. W. I. Burnett in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural 
History. Here again, for the third time, was put forth the migration 
theory. Whether it was his own idea or whether he picked it up among 
the planters of South Carolina and Georgia, whither he went for a num- 
ber of winters for his health, is difficult to say, but the latter is more 
probable. The whole paper seems to have been written mainly from 
hearsay, and contains a number of mistakes which Dr. Burnett would 
hardly have made from his own observations. 
In the autumn of 1863 or 1854 Mr. Townend Glover went South to 
