520 
Annual Report of New York 
or tawny, the thorax and wing covers yellow, lined with black, and 
inhabiting North America. This coincides so closely with our insect 
that we know not why Mr. Say doubted its being this species, unless 
it be that the black marks are too broad to be termed lines. But was 
not Mr. Say aware that Fabricius is by no means exact in limiting 
this term to slender marks? And in this insect the outer mark 
through most of its length is frequently so slender as to be a line 
rather than a vitta or stripe. For a more particular description of 
the lineatus Fabricius refers to a previous work of his, the supple¬ 
mentary volume of his Entomologia Systematica, p. 541, where he 
first named this species. We there meet with a description quite as 
full and exact as that given by Mr. Say, and to the same purport in 
almost every respect. We notice two or three phrases, however, 
which might render it doubtful whether our insect is the species 
referred to. We are told the lineatus is the exact size of the camjpes- 
tns. Specimens of the latter in my collection, received from Prof. 
Boheman of Sweden, are smaller than our insect. But Zetterstedt, 
Ins. Lapp., p. 273, and others, have remarked, what is also very 
obvious from the characters assigned to the canijpestris by Fabricius, 
that his insect can scarcely be the same with that to which Linnaeus 
gave this name. It is therefore uncertain what species it is to which 
Fabricius refers. Again, we are told the scutel is black at its base. 
This is not strictly correct; it is black only on each side of its base 
and not in the middle. Such slight inaccuracies as this, however, are 
not uncommon in the old authors. In this case, moreover, the base 
of the scutel may have been obscured by the manner in which the 
specimen was pinned. 
We come, finally, to notice a much more important discrepancy. 
This occurs in the opening of the description, the first clause of which, 
translated, reads: “ Head black, antennae ferruginous.” To coincide 
with our insect this should be, “head ferruginous, antennae black.” 
As the remainder of the description so accurately applies to our insect, 
the query at once suggests itself, is there not here a clerical error? In 
copying this first clause have not the terms been inadvertently trans¬ 
posed ? We of course are obliged to take the description as it stands, 
unless we have satisfactory evidence that it is erroneous. But how is it 
possible for us to know if there is such an error as we have suggested ? 
(fbviously a reference to the specimen from which Fabricius drew this 
description would conclusively settle this point. We are informed he 
met with this and some half dozen other North American insects 
