President. Isaac J. Wistar. Vice-Presidents. Coleman Sellers, Isaac J. Wistar, George F. Barker. I. Minis Hays, Edwin G. Conklin, Arthur W. Goodspeed, Morris Jastrow, Jr Treasurer. Horace Jayne. Curators. Charles L. Doolittle, William P. Wilson, William B. Scott. Councillors to serve for three years. George F. Edmunds, James T. Mitchell, Albert H. Smyth, Joseph Wharton. RESULTS OBTAINED FROM A SEARCH FOR THE TYPE OF NOCTUA LINN., AND CONCLUSIONS AS TO TYPES OF HUEBNERIAN NOCTUID GENERA REPRESENTED IN THE NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA. BY A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, A.M. (Read January 3, 1902.) In view of the preparation of a general Catalogue of North American Lepidoptera, I have been asked to give the types of Hübnerian Noctuid genera. It is essential that systematists state the type of the generic title they use, and their work will be lasting. in proportion as its literary basis has been proved. The scientific edifice will stand when the bricks are sound. A catalogue which employs the true, historically ascertained generic types has the advantage of possessing a permanent framework, even if later on the position of the objects designated be altered. And by using correct names a great advantage is secured to collectors and to literature. In my studies of the North American Noctuids for the past forty years, I have had occasion to investigate the subject. The results, as to the types of our genera, are given by me in 1874, in the Bull. Buff. Soc. N. Sciences, and in the two following years in the Buffalo Check List; in 1895 in the Abh. Naturw. Verein, Bremen, also in the pages of the Entomologist's Record, London, England, Vol. vi, 27 et seq.; in 1900 in the Can. Entomologist, 209; also in publications of the Ramer Museum and in these PROCEEDINGS. In the present paper I have brought together the historical evidence as to the types of certain leading generic titles, often, perhaps commonly, used in a perverted sense, or given with a wrong authority. I have also investigated the question of the use of Noctua as a generic title in the Lepidoptera. I could not have attempted this latter without the kind aid of Mr. Jno. Hartley Durrant, of Thetford, England. The type here ascertained is pronuba. The name Noctua is first used by Klein in 1753 for a genus of Mollusca. Linné introduced it then, in 1758, into the Lepidoptera in his combined term Phalana Noctua. Fabricius follows with Noctua as a generic term in 1775, 1776-77, and claims the authorship. For those who reject any limitation for the application of the law of priority, its use in 1753 will prevent its being later employed in a different group of animals. It was not used in the Birds until 1809 by Savigny, a fact to which Boisduval drew attention in 1829. In my late List (1895) of the North American Noctuids, I gave the ascertained types; what very few corrections have been found necessary are here made. The concluding portion of this List, embracing the Catocalinæ and Hypeninæ, is not yet published. The unemployed terms in the Verzeichniss of Hübner need not be considered in the American Catalogue. They may be neglected until such time when the fauna of Europe and America be so minutely compared, that subjective opinion can seize upon the smallest character for generic differentiation. As a rule, Hübner's genera in the Verzeichniss are of mixed contents, and I believe all having present application have been noticed by me. In conclusion, I must thank Mr. Louis B. Prout, of London, England, and Mr. J. D. Alfken, of Bremen, for bibliographical assistance. NOCTUA. LINNÉ, Syst. Naturæ, ed. x, Holmiæ (Salvii), 1758, Phalana Noctua. The "Phalænæ " (496 footnote) are divided into seven groups, of which the "Noctua "-antennis setaceis, nec pectinatis-form the second. Linné gives the foot-structure of the larva of his "Phalana Noctua" (497 footnote), so it seems reasonable, in a selection of the type, that this should be sought among the species whose larvæ he described. These are: Phalana Noctua strix, fagi, bucephala, humuli, dominula, fuliginosa, iacobææ, quadra (this would be, however, excluded by Linné's nota bene), pacta, pronuba, gamma (not a "possible type" from Linné's remark-Durrant i. 7.), festucæ, meticulosa, psi, chi, aceris, umbratica, exsoleta, verbaści, brassica, rumicis, oxyacanthæ, oleracea, pisi, atriplicis, præcox, triplasia, pyramidea, typica, delphinii, citrago. If we date the commencement of our nomenclature from Linné's tenth edition, the type of "Phalana Noctua" should then be one of these. GEOFFROY makes no use whatever of Phalena Noctua or of Noctua, simply using Phalana with unnamed subdivisions (Durrant i. l.). The earliest restriction of the species of Phalæna Noctua brought to my notice is: Poda, Ins. Mus. Græc., 88–91, 1761. The species there cited from Linné are: Noctua iacobææ, quadra (not a "possible type," vide ante), dominula, pacta (Poda, 90: this is not Linné's species, but is nupta Linné, therefore the name has no effect), pronuba, gamma (not a "possible type "), exclamationis (excluded, since Linné did not describe the larva), ? secalis. Of these species iacobææ is made the type of Hipocrita Hübn., 1806, dominula of Callimorpha Latr., 1810, and there would remain pronuba as the type of Noctua; exclamationis being congeneric with segetum, taken as type of Agrotis Hübn., 1806, and secalis being cited with a query. This latter is the same as didyma Esp., made the type of Apamea Ochs., 1816, through Duponchel, 1829. Before following the subsequent fate of pronuba, we will examine Linné's own restriction of his term Phalana Noctua, which has given rise to the idea that the type of Noctua falls within the limits of Schrank's genus Catocala, the type of which I have shown to be fraxini, through Hübner's restriction in the Verzeichniss. This type covers our modern use of Catocala Schrank, 1802, which should in no case be disturbed. { LINNÉ, Mus. Ludov. Ulr. Regina, Holmiæ, 1764. In this work Linné gives the following species: Phalana Noctua strix, punctigerata, fulvia, ornatrix, heliconia, rubricollis (removed now to Bombyx, so that this species is excluded), fraxini, pellex. It is probable, from this restriction, the idea has arisen (communicated to me in letters) that fraxini was the type of Noctua, because rubricollis and fraxini are the only two of these species included by Linné in the Fauna Svecica, 1761, as Mr. Durrant writes me. Linné now, in 1764, excludes rubricollis, thus restricting the type to fraxini. But, since fraxini was not included by Poda in 1761, "this can be at once disregarded as of no effect." CROTCH, Cist. Ent., i, 61, 1872, writes: Noctua N. sponsa Lamark (1801). Cuvier and Latreille (1805) concur in this, but afterward Latreille (1810) selected N. pronuba as his type. With this selection the writer would be here agreed, and it remains to be seen what has been since done with pronuba. TRIPHENA. 1816. OCHSENH., Schm. Eur., iv, 69. Interjecta, subsequa, comes (orbona), prosequa, consequa, linogrisea, pronuba, fimbria, ianthina (ianthe, domiduca). 1816. HUEBNER, Verzeichniss, 221. Interjecta, subsequa, comes, consequa, pronuba. 1829. DUPONCHEL, Hist. Nat. Lep. Noct., Tom. iv, Pt. 2, 71. Gives pronuba as the type of Triphana. Therefore Noctua Linn., in the Lepidoptera, and Triphana Ochs. would be synonymous, having same type. Mr. Meyrick (1895) uses Triphæna to the exclusion of this type. And this opens up the question as to the validity of the genus, which the type-seeker is not called upon to answer in the first instance. If pronuba, as being type of Noctua, could not be taken as type of Triphæna, then Mr. Meyrick's use of the latter term may be correct. This question does not seem necessary to answer for the North American Catalogue. I now follow the use of Noctua by authors subsequent to Linné. FABRICIUS, Systema Entomologia, Flensburgi et Lipsiæ, 1775. In this work 122 species are enumerated under Noctua, pp. 590619. There is no date on title-page, but the Preface is dated Kiliæ, Dec. 26, 1776. This work is not given by Staudinger and Rebel, p. xviii, but is cited for viminalis with the date 1777. Fabricius quotes it, in 1781, as "Gen. Ins. Mant." It contains only six species under Noctua, but these are all new and constitute no restriction of those given previously. They are as follows: (1) p. 282, Noctua boleti. This is Scardia boleti, a Tineid. (2) p. 282, Noctua virescens. This appears to be the earliest description of the North American Noctuid Chloridea virescens Westw. ex Fab. and is neglected in the Washington Catalogue, 1893. (3) p. 283, Noctua roboris. I cannot find this citation in Standinger and Rebel. Reference is made to Roesel, I, tab. 50, and the insect there depicted may be Dryobota roboris B., Cat. I, No. 1821. (4) p. 283, Noctua monilis. This appears to be the earliest description of the North American Noctuid Hypsoropha monilis Hübn. ex Fab., with a wrong locality, "Anglia." (5) p. 283, Noctua lanceolata. The habitat is given as Germany. I cannot find the citation in Staudinger and Rebel. (6) p. 284, Noctua viminalis. This is Cleoceris viminalis, referred incorrectly in the Catalogue, No. 1560, to Bombycia. The type of Bombycia Hübn., 1806, is B. or. FABRICIUS, Species Insectorum, Hamburgi et Kilonii, II, 1781. In this work 150 species are enumerated under Noctua, pp. 209241. The six of the Gen. Ins. Mant. are included. FABRICIUS, Mantissa Insectorum, Hafniæ, II, 1787. In this work 309 species are enumerated under Noctua, pp. 135184, and those previously described appear to be all carried forward. In his Genera Insectorum, 1776, Fabricius cites "Phalana Linn. Geoff." as equivalent to his genus Noctua, of which he evidently considers himself the author. Fabricius restricts Phalæna (p. 164, 7. c.) to the Geometrids, using the term in a generic sense and citing Linn. Geoff. as authority. Following his own precedent he should here have applied Linné's term Geometra. Linné's "Phalænæ," 1758, is evidently employed in a comprehensive sense, embracing all the seven groups: Bombyces, Noctuæ, etc. I have |