4 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



Cyniatophora are placed in contiguous families ; this is unfortu- 

 nate, as I am convinced they are in no way related, not so 

 much so, perhaps, as Pliisia is to Leucania. I hardly know in 

 what points they agree, whilst the ova are very distinct, that of 

 Cyviatopliora and Thyatira being more of a geoinetrid (or perhaps 

 Bombyx) pattern than that of a Noctua. If the Cymatophorid/E 

 were placed in the Bombyces, it would not materially increase 

 the heterogeneous character of that division. 



Acronycta, as represented in Britain, divides itself naturally 

 into three sections, which really are distinct genera rather than 

 sub-genera. 



The first of these is the Rmnicis group, consisting of 



1. Auricoma. 4. Venosa. 



2. Myricse. 5. Rumicis. 



3. Menyanthidis. 



These are very closely related, and hardly admit of sub- 

 division, although venosa, on the ground of the coloration of 

 the imago, may be so separated for convenience. 



The second group consists of— 



6. Psi. 10. Megacephala. 



7. Tridens. 11. Leporina. 



8. Strigosa. 12. Aceris. 

 g. Alni. 



This group is not so homogeneous as the first, and may be 

 sub-divided, if fancy so dictates, into sub-genera, of which each 

 species, except the two first, will represent one. Such sub- 

 division might be desirable if one were dealing with the 

 AcRONYCTiD^ of the whole world. The best character on 

 which to found the sub-divisions will be found in the relative 

 positions of the pale and dark segments of the newly-hatched 

 larvae. 



The third group contains only one species — 



13. Ligustri, 



and is so different from the others as to justify the doubts as 

 to its being a true Acronycta that have been held ; it agrees 

 with them, however, in the form and sculpturing of the Q.^g, 

 and in the " weak " eleventh segment of the young larva, 

 though this ' feature is less pronounced than in the other 

 groups. 



{To be continued.) 



