106 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



to classify the moth as a Lithosian before asserting it to be an Arctian, 

 " next to Utetheisa." I have already pointed out Mr. Smith's misstate- 

 ments as to the neuration. These corrected, we have before us a Noctuid 

 in all structural characters, except that the secondaries have vein eight of 

 seven ; but thus also paralleled by Stilbia. On the fore wings vein five 

 originates near four, and runs nearer four than six. The clypeal tubercle 

 and the legs, with a claw on fore-tibiae, recall, as I have said, the Stiriini, 

 and, so far as I can see from my six specimens, the tegulse do not lie 

 close to the thorax. But the squamation resembles that of Tarache, and 

 we may place the moth after this group and before Spragueia and the 

 Eustrotiini. Since 1868, I have been occupied in bringing our NoctuidiZ 

 into natural genera, founded on characters exposed by Lederer, characters 

 used also by prominent recent specialists, such as Prof. Fernald and Lord 

 Walsingham. It is therefore ridiculous for Mr. Smith to accuse me of 

 ignorance of Lederer's definitions. But it will be better not to discuss 

 any further Mr. Smith's remarks on this genus. The question whether 

 relatively sHght variations in the neuration can establish natural families 

 in the Lepidoptera, is not to be decided after the fashion of Mr. Smith, 

 but must be reasonably discussed. I have shown cases of individual 

 variation in neuration, and science has not yet removed the scales and 

 studied the veins of all the species of moths. We must not fall into the 

 fault of tucking away an insect under a scientific label, but constantly 

 occupy our minds with its various characters until its affinities become 

 clear to us. 



We may now enumerate the tribes into which I have divided the 

 Noctuince. It may be premised that the genera thus associated may, 

 in some instances, need transference. The limits between certain of these 

 tribes seem faint, and I have had to rely often on somewhat vague and 

 general characters for their definition. Unlike the Coleoptera, the in- 

 vestigator of the Lepidoptera is often at a loss to find structural features, 

 so uniform is the general character, so soft the body parts, clothed with 

 dense hair and scales, difficult to remove so that the external skeleton 

 be studied. I have recognized the divisions of tribes, sub-families and 

 families, and have endeavored to follow Leconte in his classification of the 

 Coleoptera in my nomenclature. I think we should make a distinction 

 between the characters employed for these divisions, and that we should 

 not allow for a subordinate structural character a " family " value. On 



