[96] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
The figures 011 our Plate IV, 7a, were kindly 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 Hubner'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. We are entirely of Dr. Hagen's mind, as expressed in a letter written to 
as April 4, 1883, after full study 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 Hubner'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. Somnier, 
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. Cruger, who 
was formerly connected with the Museum Godeffroy of Hamburg, that the collection 
had long since been purchased by Dr. Staudinger, of Blasewitz 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 9 specimen " argillacea 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 Hubner'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 Hubner 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 specimens of a closely allied moth— the Anomis luridula Guenee, of which one is 
labeled u luridaiaf" and a second "modesta" and a third "exacta." The species is 
quite Tinlike the exacta of Hubner's figures, so that we have here positive evidence of 
the worthlessness of the labels as historical indications of Hubner's types. 
Note 3 (p. 5). — It may seem strange, but nevertheless there is no published 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. 
