THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 807 



accept all of the new genera which Prof. Smith has recently proposed in 

 his revision of the old genus Agrotis. While 1 am a thorough believer in 

 the value of sexual characters in the classification of the Noctuids, I should 

 hesitate to establish genera upon them without first examining other than 

 our own fauna. In a recent study of the genus Drasteria I found that 

 all of the known species in our fauna had decidedly asymmetrical male 

 genitalia, while the species in the allied genera Euclidia and Caenurgia 

 had not ; nor had this peculiarity been noticed in any other Noctuids. 

 Although none but American forms have been placed in Drasteria, I am 

 sure that at least one of the common European Euclidias belongs to it, 

 but I am not yet sure that this European species does not have symmet- 

 rical male genitalia. 



While it is true that ^^'alker insufficiently characterized his genus 

 Feltia, yet the description of a species — dt(ce?is—\m.dt it a valid generic 

 title ; and as ducens is a synonym of siibgot/iica, Prof. Smith had a right 

 to recognize Feltia. But Mr. Grote now claims (in his List for 1895) 

 that Feltia must fall as a synonym of Hiibner's genus Agronoma. Hiibner 

 placed four European species in the genus, and Mr. Grote thinks the 

 type species is valligera (vestigialis). Now, if it can be shown that 

 subgothica is congeneric with the European valligera, and both Stephens 

 and Guene'e mention a resemblance, then Mr. Grote is right in placing 

 Feltia in the synonymy. Mr. Grote gives Agronoma only subgeneric 

 rank. I prefer to leave the discussion of this point to Messrs. Grote and 

 Smith ; it will require a more critical study and comparison of the 

 American and European species than has yet been made before the 

 question can be settled. 



In the light of our present knowledge, I prefer to continue to use 

 the name Agrotis subgothica, Haw., which has become so familiar to 

 American entomologists from its frequent use in both our systematic and 

 economic publications. 



Agrotis nmrceiiula. 



In his last revision of the Agrotids (Bull. 44, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 85) 

 Prof. Smith placed nmrceniila, G. tSc R., in the synonymy of vetusta. 

 Walk. This called forth the following protest from Mr. Grote under the 

 above heading (Can. Ent., XXVI., 81): "Two species, properly 

 referred by me at the time to Agrotis, were described by Walker under 

 the same specific name vetusta. One of these turns out to be, as I had 

 suggested in my essay, murcenula, G. & R., and this latter name, I claim, 



