119 



Gen. Metoponia Dup. 1844. 



1257. obtiisa H.-S. Middle States to Texas. 



obtusula Zell. 



1258. perflava Harvey. Texas. 



1259. macula Sm. New Mexico. 



Tribe Hvblaeini. 

 Gen. Hyblaea Fabr. 1793. 

 = Aenigma Strecker 1870. 



1260. piiera Gram. Texas; Florida; West Indies. 



saga Fab. 



mirificum Strecker. 

 apricans Bdv. 



Mamestra and Dianthoecia. 



In bis "letter of trausmittal", appended to the "Revision" 

 Mr. C. V. Riley embraces the opportunity for making the iincalled 

 for and unwarranted stateraent that "the geniis Mamestra is one 

 of the largest and best characterized genera of the Noctuidae"; 

 at the same time that Mr. Smith, just above the hne, flatly contradicts 

 such a Statement by correctly saying that it is difficiilt to distingiiish 

 Mamestra from certain hairy-eyed Orthosian genera by separate 

 description. In fact, in locating certain species ou single or not 

 always fresh examples, I have feit quite uncertain. And certain 

 species placed here by me, and aftervvards by Smith, will probably 

 be removed when the larvae are known and compared; e. g. picta, 

 lorea etc. Mr. Smith's "Revision" which I follow here, because I 

 have no material, takes no cognizance of Dianthoecia, a genus 

 which is recognised in Europe ou account of peculiarities in the 

 immature stages. I have given a list of the Am. species probably 

 to be referred here, Bremen Check List, 13, 1890. Because I found 

 the ovipositor an uncertain character and, in the absence of the 

 female, this genus is always uncertain in the moth stage, Mr. Smith 

 would apparently drop the generic term Dianthoecia. I tliiuk this 

 should not be done. If cucubali is a Mamestra then the present 

 genus would have to be called Hadena. Mr. Smith's Revision of 

 Mamestra must be revised. I have left here the single species 

 subdita, unknowu to me, in Iladena (= Dianthoecia) merely 

 to place the genus, but probably most of the species cited by me 

 in the Bremen Check List, 1890, uiider Dianthoecia must be also 

 placed here under Hadena Schrank. 



Xylena cariosa Guen. 

 The specimen in the British Museum cited by Smith is evidently 

 wrongly labelled, since it does not agree with Guent'e's description 

 as cited by me, Bull. U. S. G. S. VI., 26fi, 1881, a paper whi.-h 

 has perhaps not received Mr. Smith's füll attention, since it is not 

 quoted for my synonymical references of Morrison"« preliminary 

 descriptions of Agrotis in several instances. Mr. Smith"s Classification 



