THE GENUS ACROKYCTA. 



97 



By Dr. T. A. CHAPMAN. 



(Conduded from Vol. III., page 279). 



As to the affinities of Acroaycia, it will be seen that I have rather 

 shown that certain sjiecies (coryli, cceriileocephala, and those in the 

 genus BryopliUa) are not related to them, than demonstrated what 

 species and families are allied to them. The figures in Plate ix., except 

 A. (CiisjMih'a) .^tn'gosa, wliich is rather out of jdace, and D. pndibnnda, all 

 illustrate that the species represented do not, at the stages shown, 

 present any definite Acronycta characters. The egg and larva of B. perla 

 might he those of an Agrotis, Haclena, Xylophasia or Tceniocampa, but 

 certainly not of an Acronycta. 



The larva of Demas coryli is clearly a Liparid, not therefore, perhaps, 

 so very remote from Acronycta, but, still, distinctly a Bombyx (if that 

 name still has a definite collective meaning) and not a Noctua. Diloba 

 cvernleocepihaJa in its first larval stage has some aspects of a Noctua, 

 but is more Notodontid. The pupa of D. coryli is not that of a Noctua, 

 though the character of the anal armature has some resemblance to 

 various Xoctua forms. The question of affinities shown by the anal 

 armatures of i)U])fe, l)ecomes to me a more difficult one, the larger 

 number of pupa? I examine ; and I have been reduced to considering 

 them of little value, except when closely allied species have a common 

 type of armature, as — for example — the pitchfork of T<xniocampa (a 

 modification of the Hadena) type, and the two lyre- shaped spines of 

 Xanthia (Orfhosia, &c.) Avith their hair-like companions. As regards 

 the latter, I recently examined the pupa of Xanthia citrago (rather, 

 perhaps, a Co><mia than a Xanthia) and found the anal armature — with 

 two dorsal spines, and four ventral ones — closely resembling that of a 

 Cuspidia. I), pmdihunda illustrates a Liparid with unequal segments, 3, 

 4, and 9 being " weak." 



I have noticed the various criticisms that have been passed on my 

 giving new names (where there are. certainly, already quite enough) to 

 the sections of Acronycta. I have not Ijeen able to determine that any 

 of the old names will express Avhat I desire to insist on in the case of 

 Cuspidia and Viminia. These are tAvo very distinct divisions, each, no 

 doubt, capable of sub-division ; but the grand distinction between them 

 is of a much deeper and more fundamental character than any that can 

 be drawn Avithin either sub-genus. Semaphora and Tricena, Hyboma, 

 Jochocera, &c., may be used for sub-divisions of Cnsjmlia, but none of 

 them admits of the collective meaning which that term is intended to 

 indicate. Further, as regards Viminia, it includes as sub-genera not 

 only some that are usually regarded as sub-genera of Acronycta. but 

 also some that have been held to be quite distinct, viz., Arsilonche 

 (venosa), Siinyra (nervosa) and Clidia (geographica), yet none of them 

 seems available for the Avhole division. As to Bisnlcia, as this only 

 includes one species that I liave examined, I think it extremely likely 

 that this name must give place to some older name ; unfortunately, my 

 critics, who are much better synouymists and bibliographers than 

 myself, have made rather discordant statements as to Avhich that older 

 name is, and I feel (piite unable to decide the point. 



