THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 81 



Lithophane oriu/ida, Grt. — If the " type " is not in Britisli Museum, 

 Prof. Saunders may have it. This species was, I believe, authentically 

 determined by me for Mr. Geo. Norman, and his specimen may be in 

 the British Museum. 



. Lithophane Bethutiei, G. & R. — It is of little importance now, since 

 the species is so well known, but I believe our type is in Philadelphia. 

 Mr. Robinson gave our collection to the Central Park Museum, and Mr. 

 Beutenmiiller can probably testify as to what " types " of Noduidce it 

 may contain. " Types," from which a figure was made, might lose their 

 labels, and may not have been reclaimed by us. 



Lithophane capax, G. & R. — I wish to mention this species because I 

 took my own original material in 1867 with me to Vienna and showed it 

 to Julius Lederer, the well-known European authority on the Noduidce, 

 and asked his opinion on the generic location of the insect. He said of 

 all the European genera the moth came nearest to Xylina. I have been of 

 the opinion for a very long time that its position here was only tentative. 



Euharveya carbotiaria, Harvey. — When Dr. Plarvey described this 

 species, I very much doubted its reference to Lithophane. As I have 

 lost the pleasure of naming a genus after him, through Mr. Walker's 

 Siavana, I propose the present term for carbonaria, which Prof Smith 

 says affords a remarkable structural character. According to my view, 

 the moth approached my genus Ufeus. 



Agrotis muraenula. 



I am not prepared to admit, without further study, the validity of the 

 generic disintegration of the species of Agrotis. It does not seem to me 

 probable, for instance, that occulta, for which I retained Eurois, Hiibn., 

 should be congeneric w\\.\-\ pel/ucidalis. But all such questions, together 

 with the proper names according to the rules which these new groups 

 must bear, may be left to the future monographist. They do not affect 

 the present case, which is this, that 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, muraenula, G. & R., and this latter name, I claim, under the 

 custom and as accepted in Staudinger's Catalogue, should be retained for 

 the species it designates, since at the time it was free to be named and no 

 Subsequent generic separation can overturn its real and conceded right at 

 the time it was proposed. Vetusta, Walk., as applied to muraenula, 

 must be relegated to the synonymy. 



