June, 1904.] Smith : Catalogue of the Noctuid^. 95 



The basis of the chief division is essentially the old Trifid and 

 Quadrifid classification and in the main it is a good one ; but as I 

 have pointed out in the revision of our species of Acontia, that genus 

 contains perfect trifids and perfect quadrifids. I am also unable to 

 appreciate the character given for the Hypenina^ which I believe oc- 

 curs equally in some of the Noctuinae. 



And this brings us to one of the most unfortunate features of the 

 work from the standpoint of those who agree with the canons of 

 nomenclature which have been adopted by the American Ornitholo- 

 gist's Union ; /. e., the subfamily names based on genera used in a 

 sense different from the one heretofore accepted. The term Agro- 

 tince will pass, because Ap'otis in the old broad sense is the leading 

 genus, but to use Hadeninae for a distinctively hairy -eyed series is mis- 

 leading to those of us who use Hadena as Lederer and Guenee used 

 it and as it is yet used in Staudinger and Rebel's Catalogue. The 

 method of determining a generic type by selecting the first species 

 placed under it by the author no matter what the remainder of the 

 group might be, does not strike me as logical and it ignores the work 

 of a series of students who have pretty generally assumed the privi- 

 lege of subdividing genera as seemed most natural ; retaining the 

 original generic name for a series of the species placed under it by its 

 author. 



The term Noctiia applied to an Erebiid genus is disconcerting to 

 one who has been in the habit of associating it with a typical "owlet" 

 moth. 



As to the others, there is no reasonable objection to be made 

 unless it be that Ciiciillia is hardly a sufficiently generalized form to 

 serve as typical of the species with lashed or ciliated eyes. 



The first point to attract attention in the division of the Agrotinge 

 is the close association that it brings about between the Agrotids and 

 the Heliothids, and next the separation that it makes from those forms 

 with non-s]:)inose tibiae which we have been in the habit of placing 

 with them. I have not quite convinced myself, as yet, that Heliaca 

 and Melicleptria are really members of distinct subfamilies and there 

 are others that 1 am not inclined to remove from their present associ- 

 ations. 



The table of genera on pages 7-10 is a work of art and shows, 

 first, that secondary sexual characters like antennal structure are not 

 recognized as of generic value at all and, second, that the tibial arma- 



