PREFACE. 15 



tuid;p in the second hundred of the Zutnege which, according to Mr. 

 Grote in Can. Eut., xin, 02, w;is published in 18U.">. Now, either the 

 referenees were published from five to seven years before the descrip- 

 tions and plates appeared or the Verzeiclmiss was not published until 

 long after its date. In view of this fact and the fact that the entire 

 first hundred of the Zutrsege is referred to, no earlier date than lsi'0 

 can be reasonably assumed for Iliibner's list. This makes it long- sub- 

 sequent .to Ochsenheimer's System a Glossatorum, .also dated in 1-SKi 

 and, I believe, actually published about that time. Yet I have cited 

 1816 as the date of the Verzeichniss in most cases where it conflicts 

 with no other reference. Usually the dates given by Dr. Hagen have 

 been accepted as controlling. 



In citing references from society publications I have used the date 

 given on the printed forms, even where I was well assured that the date 

 \vns later, wherever this method would not involve the question of pri- 

 ority. The noctuidfe have been singularly fortunate in offering a very 

 few cases only in which there could be any serious doubt as to which 

 name had priority. In 1874 and 1875, when Messrs. Grote, Morrison, 

 Harvey, and Strecker were publishing at about the same time, several 

 species were twice described, with narrow margins between the dates 

 of publication; but these margins were at once fixed and no confusion 

 resulted. In a number of cases Mr. Grote has duplicated descriptions 

 in separate journals, each description purporting to be that of a "n. sp." 

 Thus, descriptions in the Bull. Bkln. Ent. Soc. are duplicated in the 

 Canadian Entomologist, while descriptions in that journal are dupli- 

 cated in the Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci. As this duplication occurred 

 mainly at about the date Mr. Morrison was describing, I assume that 

 it was intended to secure two chances of priority. 



In citing localities to show geographical distribution, a variety of 

 difficulties arise. Few species are so evenly distributed as to occur 

 in all parts of any large region, and yet, in giving the geographical 

 range in a work of this character it is practically impossible to give 

 details even when ascertainable. Many of our States afford varieties 

 of surface, of climate and of geological formation that support quite 

 different sets of moths. To cite "New York," for instance, does not 

 indicate that the species occurs all over that State. Many species are 

 found on Long Island that are not found at Albany, while the Albany 

 region affords many peculiar forms not thus far duplicated elsewhere 

 in the State. The Catskill and Adirondack regions each have forms 

 peculiar to themselves, while along the northern and western bound- 

 aries of the State still other forms occur. Most of the other States are 

 in much the same case, and in some the matter is more serious. Texas 

 has two quite distinct faunal regions, one of them giving the normal 

 Atlantic forms, the other extending into New Mexico and Arizona, and 

 giving quite a distinctive set of species. Colorado has a surprisingly 

 varied fauna, as will appear in the following pages. Yet a citation by 



