Grote.l 4^0 [Dec 6, 



nown to me, and whether they belong to the subgenus Carneades, or 

 whether Chera has been restricted to any one of these I cannot say), 

 tempU(ih'\s latter is the type of Dasypolia Guen.). There is no mention of 

 birivia under Chera. 



Rhyacia. 



1818 (1816-1832). Hiibner, Verzeichnus, 210. Lucipeta birivia. This 

 terra has priority over Chera, if the latter is to be restricted to the contents 

 which are Agrotis sp. It seems, on the surface, that Mr. Butler's use of 

 Chera should be changed to Rhyacia, but whether these five species of 

 Agrotis belong to the same subgenus is not certain. In no event can 

 birivia be the type of Chera. I make no reference of type to either of 

 these names, leaving the matter to those who have the material and the 

 literature. I have not examined these gray Alpine species to see if they 

 share the clypeal tubercle of Carneades. As stated by me, there are 

 primarily three structural types in Agrotis. 1. Front smooth, fore tibiae 

 unarmed. 2. Front smooth, all the tibiae armed. 3. Front tuberculate, all 

 the tibiae armed (Carneades). I have never doubted, when the clypeus 

 was properly examined, that species belonging to my genus Carneades 

 would be found in Europe, but I am the first to detect the character and 

 to insist upon a comparison of all the forms to establish these divisions. 

 There are so many names in Hiibner that Carneades can hardly be pre- 

 served, it would be almost a miracle. But if it falls I wish to have it dis- 

 tinctly understood that I based my genus upon absolute character, and 

 that Mr. Smith's statement that it was founded in " ignorance " is an in- 

 correct assertion. I distinctly oppose the use of modifications of the 

 genitalia as being of generic importance (of themselves suflJcient to sup- 

 port generic titles) in the Agrotidse for reasons already fully given else- 

 where. 



Finally, with regard to Fruva obsoleta, I have recorded it as a variety. 

 It is very distinct ivova. fasciatella, being perfectly plain, and Mr. Smith's 

 remarks upon it show that he has made but a superficial examination of 

 my types. Catalogue, 302. On the contrary, I found structural diflFerences 

 between the two in Can. Ent., and it seems that we should consider it as 

 a distinct species, unless these observations of mine are properly contra- 

 dicted. In any case it is an easily recognized form and should have a 

 distinct name. 



The Catocaline Moths. 



As stated by me in 1883 there are, roughly speaking, two distinct types 

 of ornamentation in the geometriform Agrotidse, or Catocaline. In the first, 

 the lines of the primaries are not distinctly continuous over the seconda- 

 ries, which are thus more or less distinctively marked, as in Euclidia and 

 Catocala ; in the Ascalaphini the hind wings have the general color, but 

 the lines of fore wings are usually wanting, this feature fails in Pleonectyp- 

 tera pyralis an aberrant form which has been referred to the Her- 



