made no search after the type of Noctua, Fabricius. It is evident he took the name from Linné, whether he credit it to him or not. OCHSENHEIMER, Schmetterlinge Europa's, Vol. iv, 1816. Ochsenheimer has no genus Noctua; pronuba is included by him in his genus Triphana, with other yellow-winged Agrotids, differing in structure. On page viii, Ochsenheimer cites by its full title the Tentamen of Hübner, and says, literally: dieses Blatt kam mir erst lange nach dem Abdrucke des dritten Bandes zu Gesichte, daher konnte ich früher nichts davon aufnehmen. Already in 1876 I have shown that Hagen misquoted Ochsenheimer (vide Buffalo Check List and Can. Ent.), who in reality borrowed generic names and ideas from Hübner's Tentamen and properly gives him credit. Later writers, who are here so greatly indebted to their predecessors, could profitably take example. Ochsenheimer's groupings of the Noctuids must be considered as expressing his idea of their affinities, because on page ix he says that he only catalogues and describes what he could compare in nature, not relying upon descriptions or figures, and that his systematic list is at the same time the catalogue of his collection. He gives no descriptions of his genera, any more than Hübner in the Tentamen. BOISDUVAL, Europæorum Lepidopterorum Index Methodicus. Dated on title-page 1829, but the Preface is dated Sept. 30, 1828. The work has priority over Duponchel's volume, March, 1829, or Curtis, May, 1829. "Noctua mihi," p. 63, contains names of some 70 species; Boisduval cites " Agrotis et Noctua Treits." and "Agrotis et Graphiphora Ochs." as synonymous. The type of Agrotis Hübn., 1806, segetum, is included. phana Ochs. Treitsch.," p. 68, contains 7 species, among them pronuba, designated by Duponchel as type. "Tri After Fabricius, the responsibility for the use of Noctua mainly rests with Boisduval. I cannot find that Hübner ever used the term in a generic sense. BOISDUVAL, Genera et Index Methodicus. Dated on title-page and in Preface 1840. Triphana Treits. Boisd." contains 8 species, among them Duponchel's type. 2 . Opigena Boisd., 1840, monotypic for polygona. "Noctua Treits.," sagittifera and 18 other species. "Agrotis Ochs. Tr.," agricola and 36 other species, including exclamationis, designated by Duponchel in 1829 as the type of Noctua, but erroneously so, since this is taken by Agrotis, 1806, being congeneric with segetum. It is also excluded by Durrant as being unknown in the larval stage to Linné. SPEYER, in the second edition of Dr. Schenckel's Schmetterlingssammler. Undated, Mainz, C. G. Kunze. Has a genus "Tryphæna," as used by Ochsenheimer and Boisduval, and employs Opigena for polygona. In late editions, undated, of his popular book, "Schmetterlingskunde," Speyer continues to use Tryphæna (Triphæna) in Hübner's sense, and includes pronuba in its second section. These authors, therefore, regarded Triphina as a distinct genus from Agrotis. Since I have not found in the N. Am. Noctuid fauna the precise structural equivalent of pronuba, it may not be necessary for the American Catalogue to use either Triphana or Noctua. Agrotis gilvipennis Grote, referred by me in 1890 to Triphana, belongs, I believe, having no specimen at present, to Lampra. It remains for the systematist to decide what species, other than pronuba, can be taken as type of Triphana. Duponchel's type, pronuba, can remain, if my view that Noctua is untenable obtains. LEDERER, Noctuiden Europa's, Wien, 1857 Lederer has no genus Noctua, the species here regarded as typical being referred to one of the sections of Agrotis. Lederer divides the numerous species of Agrotis primarily upon secondary sexual characters, the male genitalia. Already, in 1874, I had proposed to divide the species into two chief groups-those species which had all the tibiæ spinose and those in which the middle and hind tibiæ alone are armed (Bull. Buf. S. N. S., 11). Subsequently, in the Canadian Entomologist, I proposed a further addition, including the genus Carneades. This classification of mine gives three principal divisions for the North American species: Front smooth, fore tibiæ unarmed: Epilectra, Lampra Hübn. Lederer makes, I believe, some structural misstatements. He gives the male antennæ of linogrisea as "pyramidal zähnig." This species is the type and sole species of Epilectra. Its diagnosis should read: Thoracic vestiture scaly; male antennæ simply brush-like, nearly naked; fore tibiæ unarmed; front smooth. The eyes, as in all these structures, naked. Lederer further gives agathina as having the fore tibiæ armed and triangulum unarmed, whereas the reverse appears to be the case. In depuncta the thoracic vestiture seems scaly, whereas Lederer places it in a section where this is hairy. Neither Epilectra or Triphana (Noctua L.) need apparently affect the American Catalogue. The species referred in the "Revision" to Noctua belong to Amathes. Lederer's neglect of Hübner and his uncritical use of several generic names has increased the confusion, which is the more to be regretted since his structural observations are usually so valuable. To sum up: There seems no use in disturbing Duponchel's type, pronuba, for Triphæna, until it is settled whether the term Noctua Linné can be employed. I conclude that the historically indicated type of Phalana Noctua Linné is pronuba, and that the term Noctua cannot be used in the Lepidoptera because preoccupied by Klein in the Mollusca in 1753. The earliest plural form I find, which could be used, outside of Noctuæ, for the family is Apatelæ Hübner, 1806, and the family type would be Apatela aceris. The name Agrotidæ, H.-S., based on Agrotes Hübn., 1806, which latter occurs on the same page, is a more appropriate title for the whole group in Lederer's sense. Lederer himself gives no scientific title to the group. In the present case, if we exclude the term Noctua, there can be no doubt that the leading genera of the group are: Apatela, Agrotis, Hadena, Cucullia, Plusia and Catocala. Three of these belong to Schrank, 1802, and three to Hübner, 1806. Hübner's names have the preference for a family title, because he employs also the plural form, with the evident intention of using them for comprehensive groups, an intention he carries out ten years later, in 1816, in the Verzeichniss. Taking the opposite conclusion, that Noctua Linn. is a valid generic title, its type being pronuba, then the question comes up: Is pronuba congeneric with Agrotis segetum? If so, then Agrotis falls before Noctua Linn. Meigen (1832) includes 155 species under Noctua, with Hadena, Orthosia, etc., as subgenera. His subgenus Noctua contains baja, candelisequa, brunnea, festiva, rhombsidea, gothica (!), C. nigrum, triangulum, flammatra, musiva, plecta, punicea. He remarks: der Rücken hat einen Schopf. In the main this seems to be the group intended by Prof. J. B. Smith as Noctua, but it cannot include either pronuba or segetum. Meigen places the latter correctly under the subgenus Agrotis, but classifies pronuba under the distinct genus "Tryphæna " section A, which he characterizes as having the third palpal joint reduced, hardly noticeable. It does not seem as though subjective opinion would ever rest content with the reference of pronuba as congeneric with segetum, and therefore the question of the genus Noctua need not affect the North American Catalogue. At the present time the study of the Noctuids in America is suffering under the evil duplication of specific names and a reckless disregard of the historically indicated types of the generic titles. In this connection may I ask how Noctua comes to be applied to the group in Prof. Smith's Revision, except by a kind of restriction? For Linné's original Phalana Noctua contains insects belonging to several distinct families and only by some sort of literary precedent has it come to designate Owlet Moths or Noctuids. The same sort of historical research, only carried out with more exactness, reveals the types I must insist upon for certain genera. And, unless it can be shown, in any special instance, that I have erred (the study has often proved intricate), it will be clearly to the advantage of science that my results be adopted in the new N. Am. Catalogue. I now give here references I have made and the types which they reveal : MAMESTRA. 1816. OCHSENH., Schm. Eur., iv, 76. Pisi, splendens, oleracea, suasa, aliena, abjecta, chenopodii, albicolon, brassicæ, furva, persicaria. 1816. HUEBNER, Verz., 214. Pisi, unaminis, leucophæa. Under this restriction pisi became type, since Hübner's two other species are not included originally. (March) 1829. DUPONCHEL, Hist. Nat. Lep. Noct., T. iv, Pt. 2, 71. Designates brassica as type, but this restriction of Mamestra is no longer possible since Hübner's action in the Verzeichniss. Hübner must have taken this generic name from Ochsenheimer, 1816; hence this part of the Verzeichniss must be of later issue, probably 1822, but at any rate earlier than Duponchel. 1874. GROTE, Bull. Buff. S. N. Sci., 12. Lists the N. Am. species and takes pisi as type. This accords in a general way with the modern definition of Mamestra: Hadenoid forms with hairy eyes, the non-extruded ovipositor and different larval habit separating them from Hadena (type cucubali) Schrank non Lederer (= Dianthœcia Boisd.). I list the North American species of Dianthœecia, for which name Hadena Schrank must now be substituted, and give the characters in Rev. Check List, N. Am. Noct., 1890, 13 (Bremen, Homeyer & Meyer). HADENA. 1802. SCHRANK, Fauna Boica, II, 2, 158. Refers to this genus the species of his families M. and N. These species are typica, atriplicis, pisi, oleracea, chenopodii, præcox, xanthographa, piniperda, deaurata, referred to family M, and meticulosa, lucipara, cucubali, referred to family N. One of these twelve Noctuids must then be the type of the name of Hadena. According to modern views species 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 are monotypic, 3-5 are Mamestrians, 6-7 Agrotids. The contents are much mixed, referable to nine genera. 1816. OCHSENH., Schm. Eur., iv, 70. Excludes all the species of Schrank's family M, but includes all of N, among his 29 species of Hadena. The mixture is now more frightful than it was at first. The three original species of Hadena— meticulosa, lucipara and cucubuli—are, however, included, and one of these three must now be the type. It is noticeable, however, although species with hairy and naked eyes are indifferently cited, that all the species of Dianthœcia are included by Ochsenheimer. 1816. HUEBNER, Verzeichniss, 216. This part of the Verzeichniss is of later date than Ochsenheimer's volume. Hübner includes under his genus Hadena only two of Schrank's original species, typica and cucubali. The first is excluded by Ochsenheimer's first restriction in 1816, and moreover became the type of Nænia Stephens in 1829. Cucubali becomes, therefore, the type of the genus Hadena, and is to be looked upon |