198 REVISION OF MAMESTRA SMITH. 



genera as a rale lack well-marked structural characters, aud habitus 

 aud comparativ^e features assume a greater importance. It is my 

 purpose to finish up the hairy-eyed genera as soon as may be and 

 to present then a tabular statement of such differences as exist. It 

 will briug out more strongly the thoroughly opinionative nature of the 

 divisions in this part of the Noctuid series. 



I have been unable to separate Dlanthoecia from ^lamestra, in practice* 

 aud have united them or rather left them united, as Mr. Grote proposed 

 years ago. The single distinctive character — the salient ovipositor of 

 the female — seems in our fauna to be iuconstant in the same species, 

 i. e., some females of a species will have the ovipositor exserted, others 

 will not. I think this depends somewhat upou whether or not the in- 

 sect had oviposited. 



The work on this genus was first done before 1885, as part of the 

 monographic work then in contemplation by Dr. Riley aud myself, and 

 was then based largely upou the New York and Brooklyn collections, 

 as most accessible. Since that time the material has so increased in 

 amount that during January, 1891, 1 rewrote the whole paper, basing it 

 now upon the collections in the U. S. ^National Museum, which in full- 

 ness of series, if nob in the number of species, excels all the other 

 American collections of Noctuidce. Many species unknown to me in 

 1881 have since come to my notice in one or both sexes, and some new 

 material has needed attention. It is a somewhat interesting fact in 

 this connection that whereas new species of the Agrotid and Heliothid 

 series are constantly received in all sendings from the western high 

 plateaus, Hadena and Mamestra are rare, the latter more particularly. 

 On the Pacific coast the species are again more numerous, but they do 

 not compare in numbers either of specimens or species with the Atlan- 

 tic, or, better, boreal fauna. 



I desire here to express my obligation to the owners of the large col- 

 lections who have so liberally aud kindly aided me, and also to Dr. 

 Riley, the Curator of Insects in the l!fational Museum, who has allowed 

 me to make the fullest possible nseof the material there. The JMuseum 

 collection of Mamestra has been determined aud arrauged by me in ac- 

 cordance with the views in this paper, and the specimens are cited in 

 the record of localities. 



The species of this genus, though differing greatly when extremes of 

 form are presented, yet afford no strong or evident superficial charac- 

 ters for their division into compact groups, the species of which should 

 be closely allied. There is variation enough in structure and appear- 

 ance; but it is rather individual than characteristic of groups, and 

 can not serve for other than specific distinction in the majority of in- 

 stances. 



Two wide and very unequal divisions are indicated, though not very 

 sharply separated, and the composition of the first group is not quite 

 as homogeneous as desirable. In A, the antennae have the joints 



