Sept., 1907-] Smith: Notes on Some American Noctuids. 151 



new additions, while of my original species, only stibmarina remains. 

 Scoiogramma as I intended and understood it in 1889 is altogether 

 lost and a totally different conception of the genus is presented. In 

 fact as it stands now the genus is not mine at all. 



Anuria Ochs., so far as it refers to our species also presents a 

 changed appearance. A. staudmgeri, var. moeschleri Staud., is an 

 addition from Labrador, and is unfamiliar to me. Anarta lanuginosa 

 Sm., from Alaska is referred as a synonym to A. richardsoni Curt. 



Anarta schcsfiherri Zett. , drops out of the genus, and so does 

 qnieta Hbn. According to Hampson the two are one, belong to the 

 genus Agroiiphila and there are no American records. Anarta leu- 

 cocycla Staud., which its describer referred as a synonym oi schoenhej'ri 

 is recognized as a good species and Greenland is the only locality 

 cited. It is a question, therefore, whether any of these names are 

 properly in our catalogues. 



Anarta acadiensis Beth., is definitely referred to A. myrtilli Linn., 

 as a synonym, and that seems probably right. Anarta phcBa Hampsn. , 

 is a new species from Arctic America, and is a very dull, obscurely 

 marked form near impingeiis, which remains as it is in our catalogues. 



Anarta secedens Wlky, is removed to Polia, while A. inelaleuca, 

 lapponica, kelloggi, zetterstedtii and funebris are not hairy eyed species 

 at all and reappear in the next volume under Sympistis. 



The genus Lasiestra Hampson is really Scotogramma as I meant it 

 to be. It contains just those species that I considered typical of my 

 genus, and is, in effect, the assemblage that I held together under that 

 name in ray revision of some Taeniocampid genera in 1889. My 

 designation of siibmarina as type of the genus of course fixes it ; but I 

 am not ready to consider all those species classed with it by Hampson 

 as really congeneric. 



Scotogramma luteola Smith, is made a synonym oi S. phoca Moesch. , 

 diXi^ proifiulsa Morr. , which I made a synonym oi phoca in 1889 is 

 restored as a good species, my infuscata being cited as a synonym. In 

 so far as pro??iulsa is held as a good species, distinct from phoca, I 

 agree : on all other points I dissent most strongly. Hampson' s figure 

 of pronmlsa PL LXXIX, represents my infuscata fairly well ; but it 

 does not represent Morrison's pronmlsa. I know that species well 

 from actual examination of the type and it is simply impossible to con- 

 fuse the two. Both species are before me for direct comparison. As 

 to the identity of luteola \n\X\\ phoca I cannot speak with equal positive- 



