In reference to the present controversy my testimony is as follows: I examined, in 1867, Mr. Walker's material. This represented a form unknows to me, undoubtedly a Spilosoma, not a species or form of Hyphantria. I was so struck with this that I drew up a description and carefully compared the palpi and antennæ. From these and the slightly larger size, I felt confident that it was a Spilosoma unknown to me at the time. The description is published in Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 1868, but I have no copy, unfortunately, at this writing, of the paper. My memory is vivid that I compared it with Hyphantria cunca, and it was not that species nor any form of it. I conjectured even, at the time, that the material might be European with a wrong locality, so dissimilar was it from S. virginica or S. latipennis, the latter form being known to me from Stephen Calverley's collections from Long Island before, long before its description by Stretch.