Paragraphing is not conducive to accurate and careful statement, and I often notice editorial errors in the Gardener's Monthly - fewer, perhaps, than in other magazines of similar character. In the short paragraph on Cicada, on page 247 of the August number, there are two technical errors and an unjust reflection. The seventeen-year Cicada was named by Linnaeus Cicada septendecim - not septemdecim, and the thirteen-year race of it Cicada tredecim - not tridecim - by myself. I did not describe it as a new species, as you may see by reference to the note (enclosed) on pp. 58-9 of Bulletin 6 U. S. E. C, the General Index and Supplement to the nine Missouri Entomological Reports. You may deem the note of sufficient interest to your readers to warrant reproduction.

The popular term "Seventeen-year Locusts" should be discountenanced, for while I agree with much that you have said lately in your magazine, anent popular names, this forms an exception to the general rule, as I think I have made sufficiently clear in my 7th Mo. Rep. (pp. 187-8).

"Cicada septemdecim (Rep. I, p. 18) - This orthography, used in the Reports, is grammatically correct, but I find that Linnaeus himself wrote septendecim (Systema Naturae, Tom I, Pars II, 12th Ed. Stockholm, 1767). Fitch used both forms of spelling, but Westwood, Harris and most other authors follow Linnaeus, and septendecim is, therefore, preferable. As to whether the seventeen and thirteen-year broods should be considered specifically distinct, I am still of the opinion expressed in the First Report that the insects should not be looked upon as distinct species, but that tredecim Riley should rather be considered a race, or as Walsh (in a letter to Charles Darwin, which has kindly been shown me by Mr. G. H. Darwin) puts it, an incipient species to which, for convenience, it is desirable to to give a distinctive name. That it may be looked upon as a good species by excellent authority, will be seen by Walsh's discussion of the subject {American Entomologist II, p. 335) which I here quote:

" What candid entomologist, who has worked much upon any particular order, will not allow that there are certain genera where it is often or almost or quite impossible to distinguish species by the mere comparison of cabinet specimens of the imago? Loew and Osten Sacken have said this of the genus Cecidomyia in Diptera; Osten Sacken of two other Dipterous genera, Seiara and Ceratopogon; Norton of the genus Nematus in Hymenoptera; and Dr. LeConte lately assured me that, although when he was a young man, he thought himself able to discriminate, in the closet, between the different species of Brachinus in Coleoptera, he now considered it quite impracticable to do so with any degree of certainty. And yet who doubts the fact of the existence, in North America, of very numerous distinct species of Cecidomyia, of Seiara, of Ceratopogon, of Nematus, and of Brachinus.

"Upon the same principle I strongly incline to believe that the seventeen-year form of the Periodical Cicada (C. septemdecim, Linn.) is a distinct species from the thirteen-year form (C. tredecim, Riley) although it has been impossible for me, on the closest examination of very numerous specimens, to detect any specific difference between these two forms.* It is very true that the thirteen-year form is confined to the more Southerly regions of the United States, while the seventeen-year form is generally, but not universally, peculiar to the Northern States; whence it has been, with some show of plausibility, inferred that the thirteen-year form is nothing but the seventeen-year form accelerated in its metamorphosis by the influence of a hot Southern climate. But as these two forms interlock and overlap each other in various localities, and as it frequently happens that particular broods of the two forms come out in the same year, we should certainly expect that, if the two forms belonged to the same species, they would occasionally intercross, whence would arise an intermediate variety having a periodic time of fourteen, fifteen or sixteen years.

As this does not appear to have taken place, but on the contrary there is a pretty sharp dividing line between the habits of the two forms, without any intermediate grades of any consequence, I infer that the internal organization of the two forms must be distinct, although externally, when placed side by side, they are exactly alike. Otherwise, what possible reason could there be for one and the same species to lie underground in the larva state for nearly seventeen years in one county, and in the next adjoining county to lie underground in the larva state for scarcely thirteen year? I presume that even the most bigoted believer in the old theory of species would allow that, if it can once be proved to his satisfaction that two apparently identical forms are always structurally distinct, whether in their external or in their internal organization, they must necessarily be distinct species.

* For an excellent statement of the facts hearing upon this curious question, see a paper by Mr. Riley, the State Entomologist of Missouri, in No. 4 of the American Entomologist, and a still more complete on© in his First Annual Report.

"On the other hand, I firmly believe that many perfectly distinct forms, which at one time passed current, or which even now pass current, as true species, are in reality mere dimorphous forms of one and the same species. We find a good example of this in the dimorphous female Cynips, q. aciculata, O. S , which has already been treated of at great length". We find another good example of the same thing in Cicada Cassinii male and female, Fisher, which is sufficiently distinct from the Periodical Cicada to have been classified as a distinct species, and yet never occurs except in the same year and in the same locality as this -last, and what is more extraordinary still, is found not only along with the seventeen-year form (C. sep-temdecim), but also along with the thirteen-year form (C. tredecim).

"Now, if Cassinii were a distinct species, and not, as I believe it to be, a mere dimorphous form of C. septemdecim and C tredecim, the chances are more than a million millions to one against its always coinciding with the two other forms, not only as to the particular locality, but as to the particular year of its appearance".

"I do not know that any one has heretofore attempted to set at rest, by actual proof, the very general skepticism as to this insect remaining so long underground, on the part of those persons who have given little attention to the subject. I have been able to trace the development from year to year of my tredecim brood XVIII in the vicinity of Saint Louis by digging up the larvae each year from 1868 to 1876, and noting the annual growth. They could always be found within from two to five feet of the surface upon the roots of trees, and had by the eighth year attained the first pupa stage, and I have no doubt but that, at this writing, the true pupae are nearing the surface of the ground to appear in myriads in the perfect state in May and June of this year.

"The fungus affecting this Cicada has since been described by Mr. C H. Peck as Massospora cicadina (31st Hep. N. Y. State Mus. Nat. Hist., pp. 44, 1879)".