June, IQ04.] SmITH : CATALOGUE OF THE NoCTUIDyE. 99 



as I have them are so very different that it seeins incredible that I 

 could have confused them no matter how bad the specimens. Agrotis 

 cogitaiis is made a synonym oi Euxoa clioris Harv., which I am not 

 ready to believe is right. I have a good colored figure of type choris 

 made a dozen years ago, and Hampson's figure is at least fair — 

 cogitans is not like either. Agrotis pleuritica Grt., is cited as a syn- 

 onym to insignaia W Ik., and this again puzzles me, for as I remember 

 them there was no resemblance between the two. Euxoa decolor 

 Morr. , obtains specific rank with cauipestris Grt., as a synonym, all 

 the Walker names being referred elsewhere. Euxoa tesseUata Harr. , 

 gets pcrlentaus Wlk., insiguafa Wlk., illata Wlk., subsignata Wlk., 

 and declarata Wlk., as synonyms. E. vertualis Grt., is made a good 

 s])ecies — properly I think ^ but my spectanda, which appears as a 

 synonym is also good and not at all like the species to which it is 

 referred. Euxoa auxiliaris Grt., has introferens Cjrt., and sojor Sm., 

 as synonyms — incorrectly I am sure. Soror is certainly different and 

 I believe that iutrofereus is equally good. This whole series of species 

 is very common and I have long suites in the collection. When the 

 sexes are separated distinction is easy, for the females of the one 

 resemble the males of the other more than they do their own mates. 

 Agrotis cloauthoides Grt., is placed as a synonym to Euxoa alba lis 

 Grt., and so I believed them to be until recent good material makes 

 it certain that they are really distinct. On the whole, where we have 

 over 200 of the species of this genus in our fauna, there has been sur- 

 prisingly little change. 



Feltia Wlk., receives one of my species oi Porosagrotis zxidi \\\t 

 synonymy is not quite in accord with my list. Subgothica Haw., is 

 made the same as jaculifera Gn. = tricosa Lint., and on this point I 

 think the author is in error. Slingerland demonstrated the identity 

 of Haworth's species very fairly, it seems to me. F. ducfus Wlk., is 

 used for the species we have been calling subgothica. Agrotis Ochs., 

 is used for the species in my list ; opacifroiis is added to the third 

 section and then come all the species separately listed by me as Noctua. 

 N. j-w///^// Snell., is not recognized as different from baja Fabr. , yet 

 there is certainly a difference in the tibial spinulation between the 

 European and American examples. Just how far this may be a vari- 

 able feature is not yet determined ; but in view of the value assigned 

 to it in generic separation, it seems odd that it should not be, in this 

 case, considered as even of specific value. N. hospitalis Grt., is cited 



