90 Transactions. 



Finally, Sideridis, admitted to have the basal crest of abdomen, and 

 only stated to differ from the above genera by having thorax clothed 

 entirely with hair (for we are called upon to distinguish three genera solely 

 by their having the thorax clothed respectively " entirely with hair," 

 " almost entirely with hair," and " chiefly with hair-like scales "■ — a hair- 

 splitting task indeed), certainly possesses hair-scales in the thorax of at 

 least some species {e.g., the European lithargyria Esp.). and must, in my 

 opinion, be united with the Hyssia-Cirphis group as one genus, for which 

 the name Aletia has some authority of use, and must be adopted. 



Now we will take an instance from the Agrotid group. Heliothis, in 

 the sense in which Hampson uses.it, is distinguished from Chloridea, which 

 includes most of the species usually regarded as typical Heliothis, by having 

 the eyes small and reniform, whilst in Chloridea they are large and rounded. 

 The term " reniform " (kidney -shaped) I regard as inaccurate. I have 

 never seen an eye to which I could apply that description. Smith calls 

 them oval, but perhaps ovate would be more correct, or suboval. But 

 the species placed in Heliothis are considerably smaller insects, and the 

 reduction in the size of the eye is hardly, if at all, more than proportionate 

 to the reduction in the size of the insect, whilst the alteration in shape is 

 very slight ; and in ononis F. the eye is really small, more reduced relatively 

 than in Heliothis, and similar in form (this is admitted by Smith, but not 

 mentioned at all by Hampson), and yet this species is assigned to Chloridea 

 on superficial appearance. I would unite these genera under the name 

 of Heliothis ; but even if they were kept separate I should still use Heliothis 

 for what Hampson calls Chloridea, and I gather that Smith would agree 

 with me, such being the established use. Probably, however, Heliocheilus,, 

 a group characterized by a special type of secondary sexual characters 

 but included by Hampson under Chloridea, should be separated as a good 

 genus. Pyrocleptria (Hampson) is no longer distinguishable from the com- 

 bined Heliothis -Chloridea group, and must be merged in it. The presence 

 or absence of a corneous ridge across the frontal prominence or a corneous 

 plate below it seems to me of little importance in this group, leading to 

 a multiplication of small similar genera without significance, and I should 

 treat is as of little more than specific value. On that view Hampson's. 

 genera Melaporphyria, Neocleptria, Rhodocleptria, Rhodophora, and Melir, 

 cleptria would also be merged in Heliothis, except that the Canthylidia group 

 of Melicleptria would be tenable as a distinct genus. This combination of 

 eight genera would, after all, only make a genus of some thirty-five species, 

 and would be natural and coherent ; whilst I would similarly write another 

 characteristically American group of genera, varying in the same way, 

 under the name Schinia Hb., distinguishable from Heliothis by the posr 

 session of several claws on outer side of fore tibiae instead of one. These 

 two natural groups are unnaturally intermixed in Hampson's arrangement. 



I could multiply these instances, but perhaps the above will be sufficient 

 to show why I am unable to accept Hampson's general results without 

 considerable sifting. I am in no sense denying the value of his work, and 

 the following classification will exemplify that I have found points for 

 acceptance as well as for rejection. 



CARADR1NINA. 



I adhere to my view that the name Noctua, carrying with it the groups 

 names Noctuidae and Noctuina, is inapplicable in this connection, and if 

 has now been abandoned by most authorities ; but Hampson proposes tO' : 



