57 



7. lepidula Grt. Can. southwardly, west to Colorado. 



8. corticosa Gu. „Am. Sept." 



9. viridata Harvey. California. 

 lO.^teratophora H.-S. Canada to Texas. 



inscripta Wlk, 



11. nana Hb. „Georgia" 



Gen. Cyathissa Grt. 1881. 

 Type C. percara. 



12. percara Morr. Florida; Texas; Colorado. 



Gen. Chytonix Grt. 1874. 

 Type: C. iaspis. 



13. palliatricula Gn. Canada, southwardly. 



iaspis Gn. 



14. sensilis Grt. Eastern and Middle States. 



Trib. Agrotini. 



Gen. Agrotis *) Hbn. 1806 (in sensu Led.). 



Type: A. segetum. 



= Georyx Hbn. 1818. 



Subgen. Lampra Hbn. 1818. 



Type: A. fimbria. 



= Rhynchagrotis Sm. 1890. 



1874. Grote 6*1^ Peab. Rep., 24, states, on Treitschke's authority, that 



Poecilia is preoccupied (Tr. 5, 1, 57) for a genus of 



fishes and adopts Jaspidia over the later Bryophila 



Tr., proposed in consequence. 



The name „Jaspidea" is afterwards misapplied by Boisduval to the 



European celsia, wbich latter is the solo species and therefore type of 



Diacope Hbn. Verz. 204. See Grote, Check List, IL, 36, 1876. 



*) The following is the bibliography of Agrotis: 



1806. Hübn., Tent. : segetum (segetis) only species and 



therefore type. 

 1816. Ochs., 4, 66: rectangula and 42 other species, among them 



Hübner's type. The name is afterwards erroneously 



credited to Ochsenheimer or toTreitschke and even Boisduval. 

 1874. Grote, List Noct. 9 : takes segetum as type and credits 



the name, as Ochsenheimer does, to Hübner. 

 In the Verzeichniss Hübner divides the species under a variety of 

 generic titles, some of which are here used for the subgenera. I do not 

 admit the generic value of Smith's divisions for the reason that the characters 

 are too slight, the European species are not compared, while little attention 

 is paid by this author to the generic terms already existing. 1 keep Lederer's 

 Classification as it is most important that our species should be compared 

 with the European. I do not agree with all of Smith's arrangement, but, in 

 recognition of his valuable work in the Revision, I reta in generally bis generic 

 names and the sequence of ihe species, which latter is, in parr, that indicated 

 in my former Lists. In a paper on the genus Agrotis Can. Ent. XV., 51 

 et seq., 1883, I say: „The genus Agrotis should first be divided by the 

 Separation of the forms with non spinöse fore tibiae, then the other characters 

 here discussed should be used". Smith says, Revision, p. 8,: „Primarily ihe 

 species divide into two series upon the armature of the anterior tibiae. In 

 the first series the member is not at all «piuose, in the ^second the member 

 is spinöse, the armature is variable." This is only a^restatement of ray 

 original jrecommendation. As a matter of fact, throughout, Smith merely 

 applies rigorously the structural characters pointed out by me long before, 



