1895.] 389 [Grote. 



G. Dyar show, that we must place my Thyatiridse between the Geometridse 

 and the Ptilodontidse and divide the family* Noctuidae (a preoccupied 

 name in Aves which I have accordingly rejected from the Lepidoptera) 

 into two distinct families, upon larval structure, my Apatelidae and 

 Agrotidte. 



The families adopted by the new Lepidopterology may have exclusive 

 characters offered in the larval stage. See Mr. S. H. Scudder's BUtorical 

 Sketch, 103, where the statement is made, that generic distinctions are as 

 easily traced in the larva as in the imago. If generic, then also family 

 characters, since I have shown that the characters upon which all our divis- 

 ions are based do not differ in essential respects PapiUo, 3, 36, 1883. The 

 family Apatelidae has for its type Ap-Hela aceris of Europe and includes, 

 besides the typical genus Apatela (Apatele, Acronycla of authors), the 

 genus Diphtera Hiibner, 1806 (1811), with its type orion, to which genus 

 onrfallax belongs. Here belong also the genera Microcoelia and Harrisi- 

 memna. Other genera included by me in May, 1895, my last list of our 

 species, are probably correctly referred here, but Raphia is shown by Mr. 

 Pyar to be wrongly included and should apparently be removed to the 

 Agrotidse near Episema. The larva of Leptina (Baileya) is unknown 

 and this stage of several other genera incompletely studied, so that 

 there will be some possible necessary changes. My last list had for its 

 special object the tixing of the generic types and the restitution of the 

 oldest rightful names. It had little or no changes in arrangement to 

 propose ; but I may mention here, that the genera Calocampa and 

 Lithomoia should be classed by themselves under the tribe Calocampini 

 Grt., 1890, taken out of the Orthosiini ; while Lithophane and allies 

 should not go with them, but remain in the Orthosiini, to which group 

 they naturally belong. The question of whether we are to assign tribal 

 or subfamily rank to these divisions of the Agrotidse, has not been 

 satisfactorily solved. But the possibility of a division into groups 

 of the Agrotidse is now virtually admitted, against Lederer's rejection 

 of all such assistance to classification. More recently Hampson has 

 proposed a division into subfamilies. The number of generic titles pro- 

 posed for species of the genus Apatela in Europe is considerable and 

 their correlation with structural groups a difficult task. I have applied 

 to the names the historical method, with the result here noted. The 

 subgeneric groups here proposed are of unequal, and in some cases, /. e., 

 Arctomyscis, of doubtful value. Yet there is no reason for their rejec- 

 tion without very careful study, above all of the American species 

 which may throw fresh light upon their standing. In the case of 

 Jocheasra, the discovery of the American funeralis assists the view that 

 the group is natural and therefore valid. The clubbed hairs are 

 peculiar, reminding one of the primary hairs of 8 iturnia pavonia major. 



* See my Systema Lepidopterorum Ilildesix, August 15, 1895. Since then I have received 

 Dr. Chapman's papers which show the affinity of the Cossidse and Tortricidse, the former 

 family should therefore immediately precede the latter. The family Eriocephalidae 

 should be added at the last. For this Packard quite recently proposes the suborder 

 Lepidoptera laciniata. 



