Having arranged for a two months trip to Europe during the past summer, I determined to visit the Natural History Branch oi the British Musenm, to endeavour to clear up the doubt surrounding Walker's spilosoma Congrua, taking with me a number of specimens of S. Antigone, Strecker; a pair of the heavily-spotted Gomin form of Spilosoma, which Dr. Fyles calls Cunea, lent to me by Mr. Winn; a typical female specimen of S. Prima, kindly given to me by Mrs. Slosson; and a small series of Hyphantria Cunea, Drury. I reached London late on the 26th June, but on the morning of the 29th received a cablegram which necessitated my immediate return home. After making my arrangements to sail from Liverpool on the 30th, I found I had a few hours to spare, and so paid a very hurried visit to the Museum, and was shown what was supposed to be the three types of Congrua by sir George Hampson, who kindly remained after the closing hour to accommodate me.

A greater contrast between the last two seasons—those of 1899 and 1900—could hardly have obtained. The spring of 1899 was unusually wet, and the consequence was that the Manitoban prairie flea took refuge in our houses out of the rain, and life became almost unendurable between the armies of fleas inside and the clouds of mosquitoes without. So bad were the latter that, seasoned as I am to their attacks, all my night collecting was done under difficulties, for after covering myself as far as possible (rather a nuisance on a hot, close night), I had to bathe every square inch of skin that had of necessity to be exposed, with a strong solution of alum. This last year, through the unusually dry spring and early summer, to be bitten by a mosquito was quite an event. The fleas too took advantage of the fine, dry weather, and resumed their usual prairie life, and left us in our houses in peace. It may not be generally known, but some parts of the country swarm with fleas, while in others they are hardly to be found. In the olden days, before the railways, when we had to fetch our supplies from the nearest towns—Emerson, in my case—by waggon, camping on the prairie as we went along, I was several times cautioned by old settlers on no account to camp on certain spots, or in certain localities, if it could be avoided, by reason of the swarms of fleas that had taken up their habitation there. These places were invariably those that would be selected as resting places, being dry, sandy or gravelly spots. Still, Manitoba cannot by a long way equal Southern Europe for fleas.

Mysus fragœfolii, n. sp.

“Apterous female and larvæ white or faintly yellowish. Eyes dark brown. Antennæ concolorous with body or faintly brownish; apex of the fifth, the sixth and its spur pale dusky. Tarsi dusky, their apex black.

“Winged female: slightly more yellow, the head, thoracic lobes and sternal plate blackish brown. Antennæ black; the two basal joints of colour of body, or with a faintly dusky tinge. Legs pale dusky; the terminal third or half of the femora pale dusky; apex of tibiæ and the tarsi black. The abdomen is marked with a small, squarish, dusky spot in front of nectaries. Stigma pale dusky, veins black.” (Theo. Pergande MS.).

The following species of Acridiidæ were recently purchased by the writer from the collector, Dr. R. E. Kunze, of Phœnix, Arizona. There are thirty-two specimens, representing eleven species, one of which is apparently undescribed, representing a new genus. Several of the species are, for various reasons, quite interesting and all are herein listed. They are as follows:

1.—Hippiscus leprosus, Sauss.

Xanthippus leprosus, Sauss. Prodr. Oedip., 92 (1884).

Hippiscus leprosus, Scudd. Psyche, VI., 334 (1892).

One female; Pinal Mts., Gila Co.; July 24, 1900.

This species was determined by Mr. J. A. G. Rehn, of Philadelphia.

In Canadian Entomologist, 1895, p. 255, Prof. Cockerell gave some notes and briefly described a species of Lecanium, found by Prof. Webster and others, as L. ribis, Fitch. Later, in April, 1899, in “The Industrialist,” p. 234—5, he again describes it and gives measurements of the antennæ and legs, and states that Mr. Pergande has some doubt about the identification. In November, 1900, Prof. Cockerell sent me two lots of Lecanium, collected by Prof. W. D. Hunter at Ames, Iowa. These I determined as L. ribis (based on Prof. cockerell's notes), and sent a statement of my determination to him. Very soon I received a reply, in which he cited Fitch's description of L. ribis, and stated that under the circumstances the species which he called L. ribis apparently must be something else, and suggested for it the name Lecanium Websteri, based on the species from Ohio, described in “The Industrialist,” April, 1899, p. 235. On receipt of this letter, I wrote to Dr. Howard, requesting him, if possible, to let me have some of Fitch's L. ribis. His reply was as follows: “Mr. Pergande says that he is unable to decide which of our Eastern species is identical with L. ribis, Fitch. Fitch's type has been destroyed, and there is nothing left but a fragment of the twig on which the species was found, showing only the original size, which must have been between 5 and 6 mm. in diameter. Since Fitch's short description appears to agree with L. armeniacum, Mr. Pergande thinks it to be that species, or a pale form of L. cerasifex, which is our most common Eastern species.” At the same time, Dr. Howard kindly sent me some of prof. Cockerell's L. ribis. These, together with specimens from Dr. Fletcher, P. J. Parrott, and those found by me in Massachusetts, were critically studied.

The past two seasons in Kansas have proved fairly profitable to the collector of Coleoptera. To the plains collector the “open” season for successful collecting extends from April 1st to October 15th. If he is so fortunate as to reside beside or near a wooded stream, his “open” season covers the cycle of the months, as winter sifting proves almost as profitable as collecting during the summer months, especially if he looks after the small things, and he is not possessed of the genuine collector's spirit if he does not look carefully after the minute things in insect life.

The first attempt at an arrangement of the N. Am. Lepidoptera, including a reform in the nomenclature, which I published in 1896, calls for some corrections. In the present list I have endeavoured to supply these, but, doubtless, there are others which have escaped me. Since 1896, Lord Walsingham and Mr. Durrant have fixed the types of the genera Tortrix, Tinea, Alucita and Pterophorus, in the two former confirming my doubtful determination of 1895 and correcting the type of the last named genus to monodactyla. I have followed Dyar, in Can. Ent., in using Hipocritidæ instead of Arctiidæ. I cannot find the sure type of Geometra or Noctua. I reject, however, the latter name, since it was differently used by Klein in 1753, and the assumption of 1758 as the basis of nomenclature is arbitrary. The present arrangement is based on that of the Syst. Lep. Hild., 1895. The views of Dyar with regard to the value of the larval tubercles are adopted. The superfamilies are regarded as parallel growths. It seems probable that the Hesperiades, Sphingides, Saturniades and Bombycides (Agrotides) are separate developments from the Tineid phylum. The subfamilies mark breaks in the sequence. This latter is arbitrary, but no scientific reason has been adduced for changing the general Linnæan plan, which is practically the most convenient. With regard to the family names, the oldest term, employed in a collective form and not preoccupied, is retained. At a time when new Catalogues are preparing, the publication of systems will be useful. The diurnals are arranged according to the diphyletic classification of 1897, the sequence and value of the groups are given by me in April, 1900. With regard to the origin of the Lepidoptera, the Micropterygides show hymenopteriform and trichopteriform, the Hepialides neuropteriform characteristics.

The Linnæan genus Gryllus, as first recognized in the tenth edition of Systema Naturæ, was composed of a number of sections which, while some have been recognized, are generally discarded. These names are used in the sense of subgenera, and as such are entitled to recognition. The case in hand being a deeply involved one, we must find some guide to be used as a standard in properly handling these names, and as to-day the Code of the American Ornithologists' Union is generally recognized as the vade mecum, we shall follow that. Canon XIX. of this Code is to the effect that a name “once established is never to be cancelled in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but retained in a restricted sense for one of the constituent portions.” With this before us we must proceed to find on what a name should be retained. As was the case with the earlier writers (and is frequently the case with modern writers), Linnæus specified no types, and we must refer to the Code for help. Canon XXIV. informs us that “when no type is specified, the only available method of fixing the original name to some part of the genus to which it was originally applied is by the process of elimination, subject to the single modification provided for by Canon XXIII.” The last mentioned Canon is as follows: “If, however, the genus contains both exotic and non-exotic species—from the standpoint of the original author —and the generic term is one originally applied by the ancient Greeks or Romans, the process of elimination is to be restricted to the non-exotic species.” Of the six Linnæan subgenera—Mantis, Bulla, Acheta, Acrida, Tettigonia and Locusta—four are classic: Mantis, Acheta, Tettigonia and Locusta.

Prof. Smith has been to London, and now radically changes the synonymy in the genus Acronycta, which I had hoped was to have been finaliy settled in the revision which was published by him and myself. The chanses involve the identification of three of Guenée's species and one of Walker's. As to impleta, Walk., we must accept Smith's identification as luteicoma, G. & R. I would suggest that the type ought now to be destroyed, lest future changes in the synonymy result. Guenée described eighteen species of Acronycta from North America, of which the larvæ of six were mentioned. In a genus like Acronycta, where the imagoes are so similar as not to be readily differentiated by description, while tire larvæ are very diverse, the larval descriptions are relatively important. Of the three species now changed (clarescens, Gn.; hamamelis, Gn.; brumosa, Gn.), two have original larval descriptions. As to clarescens I have no comment, especially as Grote's first identification is now restored. But the others are different. Hamamelis, formerly referred to an oak-feeding species (inclara, Smith), is now transferred to afficta, Grt. But Guenée's description contradicts afflicta in the colour of the hind wings, whereas it fits well the species named subochrea by Grote, better even than it fits inclara, and to this the larva also applies. As to brumosa, Smith says (Revision, p. 118) “the original description will fit either one of two or three species.” The characterization of the larva should then be allowed to prevail and the name be referred to inclara.

[In 1891 Mr. Chas. Robertson wrote (Tr. Am. Ent. Soc., XVIII., 49); “After careful study, I have been unable to determine more than two of Smith's species” of Andrena; and went on to explain that Smith's descriptions omitted certain characters which were necessary for the exact determination of the species. It is probable that Mr. Robertson did not have before him many of Smith's species, and hence, naturally, could not recognize them in his material; but it is nevertheless true that the determination of Smithian Andrenœ from the description alone is often a matter of great uncertainty.