SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 13 



City of London Society's Meeting, October i6th, 1890, on "The genus 

 TcEfiiocampa" {Record i., p. 216), is the reason for Dr. Chapman 

 supposing that I wish to replace leucographa and rubricosa in 

 Tceniocampa : — " The species leucographa and rubricosa, although verv 

 closely allied to each other, are very dissimilar to hyperbnrea {alpina)^ 

 which seems to be an aberrant member of the AgrottdcE, and there 

 appears no reason whatever for uniting these species in the genus 

 PachnobiaT Dr. Chapman assumes that by this I mean replace 

 leucographa and rubricosa in Tcziiiocainpa} and I suppose leave alpina 

 in Fachiiobia. What I stated at the meeting (the report is only the 

 barest summary of my remarks) was — refer alpiiia to Agrotis or 

 thereabouts, but leave leucographa and rubricosa (under Paclmobia or 

 any other name) generically distinct from alpina. I certainly did not 

 suggest replacing these species in Tieniocampa and practically agree 

 with Dr. Chapman's remarks. The literature of the genus Pachnobia 

 seems to be as follows: — Guenee created Paclmobia for the species 

 carnea, hyperborea, carnica,'^ and glacialis'^' {Noctuelites, v., pp. 342, 343), 

 Dr. Staudinger moved hyperborea with carnica and glacialis to Agrotis 

 {Catalog p. 81); he also removed leucographa and rubricosa from 

 Tceniocampa into Pachiiobia, Gn., with carnea {Catalog 114). Our list- 

 makers, leave hyperborea in Paclmobia (following Guenee) and then add 

 leucographa and rubricosa (following Staudinger), and so mix the matter 

 completely. I can only imagine that our list-makers in their wisdom 

 have supposed that carnea = carnica (another synonym of hyperborea)^ 

 and have thus become hopelessly muddled. Undoubtedly carnea has 

 prior claim to Pachnobia, and as leucographa and rubricosa go with 

 carnea they will retain Paclmobia, but what is alpina to do ? Of course, 

 if we only had our 3 (so-called) Pachiwbics to account for, alpina would 

 by priority take that generic name but carnea alters matters entirelv, 

 and I take it that Dr. Chapman has used (in his remarks above) the 

 genus Pachnobia quite correctly, in so far as he includes leucographa 

 and rubricosa. But we shall have to remove alpina ; probably, it 

 appears, make a new genus for it. For the remainder Dr. Chapman's 

 careful differentiation is quite new matter for consideration. In the 

 Canadian Entomologist, March i8gi, p. 46, Mr. Grote writes: — "I 

 referred to my Check List (1875) Pi-'ichnobia to Agrotis, but in deference 

 to European writers have lately left it near Tceniocampa^ I am sorry I 

 don't know how Grote uses Pachnobia. Can any reader tell me ? — 

 J. W. TuTT, Westcombe Hill. April 2nd, 1891, 



The Value of the Genitalia in determining Species. — The 

 following note by Mr. W. H. Edv/ards, Coalburgh, West Va. U.S.A., 

 taken from the Canadia?i Entomologist, xxiii., p. 55, appears so certain 

 to interest British entomologists that I have no hesitation in reproducing 

 it for their edification. It is as follows : — "Are the genitalia valuable in 

 determining species ? I doubt it much. We do not need to examine 

 them to prove that two species plainly distinct in the imago, are really 

 so as Papilio turnus ^.nd philenor. It is when the imagoes are puzzling 

 that help from any quarter would be welcomed, as in the case of 

 Grapta c-album, G. comma, G. satyrus, G. faunus. AVill they help us 



^ I took the genus Tceniocamfa in its most comprehensive form, as dealt with in 

 our British text-books. 



^ Carnica and glacialis are vars. of hyperborea. 



