248 GEORGE D. HULST, 



species for this very purpose. In a very few cases, however, I have 

 found the minute rudiments of maxilhiry palpi. 



I have endeavored to follow strictly the law of priority in generic 

 and specific names, and have therefore, without hesitation, taken 

 Hiibner's genera as given in the Verzeichniss. I have not endorsed 

 the names of the " Tentamen," as I can find nothing which shows it 

 to be a publication. It is simply a printed letter, and can have no 

 authority, because it was written in type. I have, however, noted 

 where the " Tentamen" names apply, for the convenience of those 

 who disagree with me in my opinion of their validity. 



I have been unable to make very little of the genera of Guenee 

 and Walker, based upon exotic, mostly tropical material. Their 

 diagnoses are in the main without exact reference to structure, and 

 I have been unable to examine their types. I have also made little 

 use of the genera of some later writers, as the structural basis for 

 these genera is the position of various veins which is excessively 

 variable in the same species. The validity of these can only be de- 

 termined after extensive comparison of structure in the same species, 

 and in species nearly related. 



It was the custom of the French Lepidopterists of former times 

 to call the group the Phalsenidse, and in this Guenee was followed 

 by Dr. Packard In his Monograph. Phakeiia, as used by Linnaeus, 

 is nearly equal to the Heterocera as now used. Geometer was the 

 name he gave to group under consideration. Fabricius afterwards 

 ignored this name, and called the group Phahviia, but it is clearly a 

 synonym, and so neither it nor its derivitives have any standing. I 

 have given the group superfamily standing, though the most of 

 systematists may not agree with nie. But as will be seen I give the 

 group a wider reach than most Lepidopterists. 



The Geometrina separate from other groups of the Lepido})tera as 

 follows : The antennae are never club shaped or fusiform, and they 

 are thus distinguished from the Rhopalocera, Spliingina, and some 

 other grou])s. The larva have one or more pairs of the anterior 

 abdominal legs wanting, and they are thus distinguished from the 

 Bombycina in the widest reach of that term ; vein 5 of the fore 

 wings is from or near the centre of the outer margin of the cell, and 

 they are thus distinguished from the Noctuina. There are only one 

 or two internal veins to the hind wings, and thus, as well as l)y the 

 peculiarity of the larva', they are separated from the Microlepidop- 

 tera. In my judgment their nearest relatives are the Noctuina, 



