I 



VOL. XXIII. LONDON, MARCH, 1891. No. 3. 



REMARKS ON PROF. JOHN B. SMITH'S REVISION OF THE 



GENUS AGROTIS. 



BY A. R. GROTE, A. M., BREMEN, GERMANY. 



To the great kindness of Prof. French I owe a copy of the Bulletin of 

 the U. S. National Museum No 38, which contains Prof Smith's Revision 

 of the North American Species of /Igroiis. In view of the fact that out 

 of the 252 species reviewed by Prof. Smith, no less than no are credited 

 to myself, besides five species "not placed," it might be reasonably 

 supposed that I was interested to receive this publication and that I must 

 regret not having received it before publishing my New Check List. 



With regard to the classification of the group it is conducted upon the 

 basis first suggested by myself, /. e., the forms with unarmed fore tibise are 

 separated, and other divisions are based upon genitalia and sexual char- 

 acters. These latter, in my opinion, are not sufficient for generic distinc- 

 tions in the noctuidse, and we may thus regard the whole as forming one 

 genus, the more so as the European species are not fully drawn into 

 comparison. Prof Smith is quite right in saying that I had no idea of 

 the extent of my genus Carneades. I only regard as belonging to it 

 species with tuberculated clypeus. At the time of establishing the genus 

 upon moerens and citricolor, I had no longer the opportunity of com- 

 paring my former material. I believe there can only be a question of 

 three genera at the expense of Agrotis as considered by modern authori- 

 ties : one in which the anterior tibise are unarmed ; one in which the 

 tibiae are all armed, both of these with smooth clypeus ; the third [Cat 11- 

 eades Grote) in which the front is tuberculate. I do not know that the 

 generic term Nodua can be used for any of these divisions, according to 

 the rules of zoological nomenclature, because I believe it was previously 

 used in the Birds. For the characters to be used in separating the groups 

 of Agrotis. I refer the student to my paper on the genus in the Cana- 

 dian Entomologist, Vol. XV., p. 51, et seq. The type of the genus, as 

 pointed out by me, is assumed by Prof. Smith to be the European segetum. 



