202 A. R. GROTK. 



in part) is superficial. I give the principal characters and those added 

 by Mr. Smith are the superficial ones. Axenus is also called a bad genus 

 by Mr. Smith, and now appears as good and even belonging to a differ- 

 ent subfamily. Mr. Smith is vacillatory and hard to please. 



LYGRAXTHOECIA, G. & R. 



Type : Crambus marginatus, Haw. 



In the Buffalo Bulletin, 1874, in my partial list of genera of this 

 group, I gave the extension of this genus which I used in my Check 

 List (1875). It is only enlarged now by Mr. Smith by adding to it the 

 single species of Tamila and Oria, and others from different genera 

 which do not change my conception of it in 1874 and subsequently. It 

 replaces Anthoeria, which has a different type. I cannot understand 

 what induced Mr. Smith to call it Schinia. lam the only author to 

 use Schinia, and I took it for the three species so called by Hubner, who 

 does not give any characters, and the adoption of his term at my ex- 

 pense shows that Mr. Smith abandons his acknowledged principles. I am 

 the first to describe the fore tibiae of the type, and my only error, if it 

 is one, is that I believed that modifications of tibial armature would give 

 generic characters, and so I retained and described as distinct Tricopis 

 for the satiny white forms, and retained Eulewyptera for cumatilix, de- 

 scribing the anterior tibial armature. This genus might be called Tamila, 

 because its type is shown by Mr. Smith to belong here. But that term 

 rests only on one species and Gruenee does not note its relation to his 

 Anthoecia. The first mistake is really made in the "Species General." 

 Although I made many changes with Guenee's Hadenas, Mamestras and 

 Agrotids, rearranging the species by their natural characters, I drew in 

 but few genera and almost everywhere I allowed the genera to stand. I 

 did this partly because I was under the impression that ultimately more 

 genera would be recognized, and it was important to keep the synonymi- 

 cal meaning of the old terms from being lost ; secondly, because my work 

 had not yet got to the stage where I had the species all described and 

 was ready to monograph the family. It is absurd of Mr. Smith to 

 assume now, in monographing a small group of about 100 species, of 

 which I have discovered about one half, that I should have exhausted 

 inquiry which covers all the species described by other writers. It is 

 assumed by him that my list is a minute study, such as I have made of 

 the small forms related to Erotyla, and I am made responsble for the 

 genera of my predecessors. But I had done enough, as far as I pre- 

 tended to go, when I brought the genera approximately into their proper 

 sequence, and had sifted the species so that the inconsistencies of former 



