292 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



The stationary veins 

 in the lepidopterous wing are, then, the subcostal, the main stem of the 

 radius, the cubitus with its two invariable branches (cases occur in which 

 a fourth median branch is noted), and the second anal vein. 



It remains to state that accessory or secondarily developed veins 

 always seem to be joined on to other veins, their object being to 

 strengthen the tegument in some particular part of the wing which the 

 changes above detailed have left weak. A curious way in which veins 

 have become bent, in order to support the peculiar shape of the 

 wing, has been detailed in my papers on the " Round-wing," Psetidopontia 

 paradoxa. Another curious case is that of the fusion of the first and 

 second radial branches, just before tip of fore wing, in Pereiite callinice. 

 The first radial here fails to reach the outer margin, and the object seems 

 to be to strengthen the apical field, left weak by the reduction of the 

 radial branches. 



If this localization of the secondary veins, which I assume, be 

 correct, it follows that all veins issuing from base of wing are, ipso facto, 

 primary, carried over from j^rimitive types of insects. The short, down- 

 wardly curved internal vein, which I have taken as the visible sign of the 

 Papilionides, is, then, a true third anal vein, or what remains of one, and 

 is not to be considered as of secondary origin and value. 



TYPES OF NOCTUID GENERA. 



BY A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, A. M. 



In reference to my previous paper (page 209), Mr. Louis B. Prout 

 kindly draws my attention to the fact that Duponchel, Lep. Ent., March, 

 1829, also selects didyiiia as type oi Apamea, Ochs., 1816. While it is 

 gratifying that I had come independently to the same conclusion with 

 regard to this type, I cannot follow Duponchel's selection in other cases. 

 I merely state the fact here, reserving details for a later occasion. 



It further appears from Mr. Prout's researches that Curtis, who 

 publishes later than Duponchel, viz., in May, 1829, "chooses chryso- 

 grap/ia " as type oi Apamea. Independent of the fact that this choice is 

 rendered nugatory from Duponchel's prior action, I do not identify this 

 name with certainty as referring to one of Ochsenheimer's original species 

 of Apamea. Great confusion has been caused by the double employ- 

 ment oi iiiditans for two distinct forms. It was owing to the fact that I 

 incorrectly supposed Ochsenheimer's niditans ( = oculea) was Linne's 



