1902.] GROTE — SEARCH FOR THE TYPE OF NOCTUA LIJ^X. 11 



Lederer makes, I believe, some structural misstatements. He 

 gives the male antenn?e of linogrisea as ''pyramidal zahnig." 

 This species is the type and sole species of Epilectra. Its diagno- 

 sis should read : Thoracic vestiture scaly ; male antennae simply 

 brush-like, nearly naked ; fore tibiae unarmed ; front smooth. The 

 eyes, as in all these structures, naked. Lederer further gives agathina 

 as having the fore tibiae armed and triangulum unarmed, whereas 

 the reverse appears to be the case. In depuncta the thoracic vesti- 

 ture seems scaly, whereas Lederer places it in a section where this 

 is hairy. Neither Epilectra or Triphcena (Noctua L.) need ap- 

 parently affect the American Catalogue. The species referred 

 in the " Revision" to Noctua belong to Amathes. Lederer's 

 neglect of Hiibner and his uncritical use of several generic names 

 has increased the confusion, which is the more to be regretted since 

 his structural observations are usually so valuable. 



To sum up : There seems no use in disturbing Duponchel's type, 

 pronuba, for Triph?ena, until it is settled whether the term Noctua 

 Linne can be employed. I conclude that the historically indicated 

 type of Fhalcsna Noctua Linne is pronuba, and that the term 

 Noctua cannot be used in the Lepidoptera because preoccupied by 

 Klein in the Mollusca in 1753. The earliest plural form I find, 

 which could be used, outside of Noctuae, for the family is Apatelae 

 Hiibner, 1806, and the family type would be Apatela aceris. The 

 name Agrotidae, H.-S., based on Agrotes Hiibn., 1806, which 

 latter occurs on the same page, is a more appropriate title for the 

 whole group in Lederer's sense. Lederer himself gives no scientific 

 title to the group. In the present case, if we exclude the term 

 Noctua, there can be no doubt that the leading genera of the group 

 are : Apatela, Agrotis, Hadena, Cucullia, Plusia and Catocala. 

 Three of these belong to Schrank, 1802, and three to Hiibner, 

 1806. Hiibner's names have the preference for a family title, 

 because he employs also the plural form, with the evident intention 

 of using them for comprehensive groups, an intention he carries 

 out ten years later, in 18 16, in the Verzeichniss. 



Taking the opposite conclusion, that Noctua Linn, is a valid 

 generic title, its type htmg pronuba, then the question comes up : Is 

 profiuba congeneric with Agrotis segetuin ? If so, then Agrotis falls 

 before Noctua Linn. Meigen (1832) includes 155 species under 

 Noctua, with Hadena, Orthosia, etc., as subgenera. His subgenus 

 Noctua contains baja, candelisequa, brunnea, festiva, rhombsidea, 



