104 ' THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



llic chnractcrs of the priiiciixil gciiL-ra in llic first part of tliis paper, so fixr 

 as 1 ha\e material l)t'fore me to examine. The jjresent paper is intended 

 to sup])lv material for the future monographist of the Noctiiidw, with my 

 other studies already published, and I need not weigh critically the value 

 of certain points of structure at the present time. A recent paper of 

 mine in " Fai)ilio,"' upon clas.sification, gives l^rietly the general con- 

 clusions to which my experience has led me. I wish only here to show 

 that a study of natural characters leads to a correspondence between the 

 results of different observers which is not attained in any other way. 

 Imi)ortant discrepancies may be laid to a lailure to study enough material 

 or to examine it thoroughly. By the system of (juenee the limitation of 

 the genera was made more uncertain ; by that of Lederer the confines 

 were more clearly exposed. But no finality can l)e reached until, all the 

 Noctuidai being known, a final arrangement will be arrived at from the 

 mere futility and imimportance of changes dependent to a considerable 

 extent on the mere temper of the writer. Just as Thalpoc/iarcs obtains 

 as against 7)-('////.s"r/. so 1 should retain Z_)'i,'7'(i'///'//t^(r/,'? as against ^SV//////^? 

 or ni\" term F.ulciicxptcra. It is clearly of less importance what name we 

 give the genus when its hmits'are agreed upon generally speaking. Even 

 after the minute researches of I<ederer and Von Heineman, some species 

 are difticuili to place and will oscillate for some time. Many differ in com- 

 parati\e characters only, and abotit the value of these there will not be 

 easil) found an agreement between writers. Guenee's genera in both 

 Noilniilie aixl GeoJiidriche are not based on scientific or natm-al charac- 

 ters, but lie arrives at results sometimes identical with those of Lederer. 

 Lederer is decided in his criticism of Guenee. but not personally hostile 

 or illiberal, hence his remarks have a certain value which they would not 

 otherwise l)ear. Now quite recently in a monograph which is certainly 

 exhaustive in appearance and the result of a wonderful industry, Dr. 

 Packard very strongly endorses Guenee and considers his work as superior 

 in value to Lederer's by distinct implication. I myself do not share this 

 o])inion, and since my return from Europe in 1867, 1 have used the 

 natural rharacters laid down b}' Lederer and discarded the comparative 

 ones of (luenee. In fa( t I could not iuiderstan(_l genera comprising 

 "groups" entirel) arbitrarily composed, without definition, embracing 

 s])ecies with hairy and naked eyes (e. g. Aplccta) or with no reference to 

 the structure of the feet. The exceptions to his diagnoses are often more 

 numerous than the typical forms. " Souvent," etc., is a term which seems 



