PREFACE. 15 



luidiT^ in the second Imndrcd of tlic Ziitru'iic wliicli, acoonling to Mr. 

 (hote in Can. Ent., xiir, 92, was published in 1823. Now, either the 

 references were i)iib]islied from five to seven years before the descrip- 

 tions and iilates appeared or the Verzeichniss was not published until 

 long after its date. In view of this fact and the fact that the entire 

 first hundred of the Zutr;pge is referred to, no earlier date than 1.S20 

 can be reasonably assumed for Iliibner's list. This makes it long snb- 

 sefpient to Ochsenheiiiier's Syst«'iiia Glossatoruni, also dated in 181(1 

 and, 1 believe, actually i»ublished about that time. Yet I have cited 

 1810 as the date of the Verzeichniss in most cases where it conflicts 

 with no other reference. Usually the dates given by Dr. Hageii have 

 been accej)ted as controlling. 



In citing references from society publications I have used the date 

 gi\en on the printed forms, even where I was well assured that the date 

 was latei', w herever this method would not involve the question of pri- 

 ority. The noctuidte have been singularly fortunate in ottering a very 

 few cases only in which there could be any serious doubt as to which 

 name had priority. In 187-1 and 1875, when Messrs. Grote, Morrison, 

 JIarvey, and Strecker were publishing at about the same time, several 

 si)ecies were twice described, with narrow margins between the dates 

 of ])ublication; but these margins were at once fixed and no confusion 

 resulted. In a number of cases Mr. Grote has duplicated descriptions 

 in separate journals, each description ])urporting to be that of a *'n. sj).'' 

 Thus, descriptions in the Bull. Bkln. Ent. Soc. are duplicated in the 

 Canadian Entomologist, while descrii)tions in that journal are dupli- 

 cated in the Bull. Buff. Soc. Xat. Sci. As this duplication occurred 

 mainly at about the date Mr. ^forrison was describing, I assume that 

 it was intended to secure two chances of i)riority. 



In citing localities to show' geogra[)hical distribution, a variety of 

 difficulties arise. Few species are so evenly distributed as to occur 

 in all parts of any large region, and yet, in giving the geographical 

 range in a work of this cliaracter it is practically impossible to give 

 details even when ascertainable. Many of our States afford varieties 

 of surface, of climate and of geological formation that support quite 

 diff'erent sets of moths. To cite "New York," for instance, does not 

 indicate that the species occurs all over that State. Many species are 

 found on Long Island that are not found at Albany, while the Albany 

 region affords many peculiar forms not thus far duplicated elsewhere 

 in the Strife. The Catskill and Adirondack regions each have forms 

 peculiar to themselves, while ah)ng the northern and western bound- 

 aries of the State still other forms occur. Most of the other States are 

 in much the same case, and in some the matter is more sericms. Texas 

 has two (piite distinct fauna! regions, one of them giving the normal 

 Atlantic forms, the other extending into New Mexico and Arizona, and 

 giving quite a distinctive set of species. Colorado has a surprisingly 

 varied fauna, as will appear in the following pages. Yet a citation by 



