148 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. xv. 



Noctua rava H.-Sch., stands in our catalogues and lists with nm- 

 brata Pack. , as a synonym. Hampson puts both names under Episilia 

 quadningula Zett. In the British Museum collection there are five 

 examples : one from Labrador, four from Iceland, and the first speci- 

 men appears to rae to be specifically distinct from the other four. I 

 have four examples from Labrador, compared with, and very similar 

 to Dr. Packard's type, so that I am sure of that species. The de- 

 termination that umbratus was identical with rava was made by me in 

 1890, partly from Herrich-Schaeffer's figure, partly from specimens 

 sent me as rava by Moeschler. I am not in position to verify my 

 original determination at present, and am not familiar with the true 

 quadrangu/a of Zetterstedt ; but I feel very sure that there are two 

 species included in the three names qiiadrangula, rava, and umbratus, 

 and I am quite ready to believe that the original error was mine, in 

 making umbratus Pack, the same as rava H. S. Until some one is in 

 position to settle the question from knowledge of all three species, I 

 prefer to leave matters as I have them now. 



Lycophotia radiola Hampsn., replaces Setagrotis radiatus Sm., be- 

 cause two years previous to my description Schaus had described 

 Praina radiata. According to the basis adopted by Hampson, Mr. 

 Schaus' s species and my own are generically the same, and the new 

 name was a necessity. But I do not believe that the genera are 

 identical. I will admit that my Setagrotis is the same as Lycophotia 

 Hbn., if anything is to be gained by that ; but Praiua Schaus is cer- 

 tainly not, from my point of view, the same as Setagrotis ; therefore, 

 for the present I will continue to use the name as I wrote it, admit- 

 ting, if you please, that I would not have used the name had I kaown 

 of its earlier occurrence in an allied genus. 



Lycophotia prcBfixa Morr. , was described from the Julius Meyer 

 collection and I have a photograph of the type. After examining the 

 type of Agrotis gracilis Grt., and concluding it distinct from my /;;- 

 geniculata, it occurred to me to compare it with the Morrison name 

 and its description and I believe that the two refer to the one species. 

 To me the resemblance of docilis to occulta seemed obvious from the 

 first, and a reexamination, while it showed that the two were not iden- 

 tical, as I had at first believed, yet confirmed my opinion as to their 

 close relationship. The habitat of docilis and prcefixa is the same, and 

 while I am not ready to make the reference definitely, I believe that 

 eventually it will be found that one species only is referred to. 



