28 THE entomologist's record. 



descriptions in the Verzeichiiss (1816-1818?) are really only infini- 

 tesimally better than nothing, while Mr. Walker's, in the British 

 Museum Lists (1856), are quite as useless for purposes of identification 

 of structure, and infinitely more mischievous and misleading. The 

 Tentamen is, as I have proven, admitted by Ochsenheimer as authority, 

 and has then equal value with the catalogue names of Ochsenheimer and 

 Treitschke. All, or nearly all, the generic names of these latter 

 authors are proposed for mixed assemblages, and the task before us is 

 to ascertain how the subsequent use and restriction of the name affect 

 its value and enable us to fix upon the precise type. Neither Hiibner 

 or Ochsenheimer appear to have had any idea of an individual type of 

 their mixed genera, and seem never to indicate any species as such. 

 The first sjoecies they list is no more the " type " of their genera than 

 the last. It is the subsequent wse and restriction of the generic name 

 which guides us in ascertaining the type ; while the disposition made 

 of the contents of a mixed genus leaves us finally some one of the 

 original species to Avhicli we can apply the original name with exact- 

 ness. The fact that tlie American Noctuid fauna is largely of the 

 European structural type makes an agreement in nomenclatui-e very 

 desirable, and it is to this end that I offer the following results of some 

 of my researches. Where my facts cannot be disputed, I may be 

 allowed to consider that my conclusions should be respected. 



I may say, that, in the Noctuidae, the difficulty of finding out the 

 generic type is added to by the fact that modern giMiera are founded 

 on structure, and that sjiecies, very similar in ajopea ranee, colour and 

 pattern, may be very dissimilar in structure. In Oclisenheimer's genus 

 XyJena, for which he quotes Hiilmer, and which is the original of the 

 " Xylina " of later authors, are arranged species belonging to half-a 

 dozen, often widely separated, modern genera. Colour and jmttern, 

 and even size, are often a guide in the Butterflies, where the ancient and 

 modern genera more nearly cover each other. How could the older 

 authors even approximately arrange the Noctuidae correctl}'^, knowing 

 hardly anything of the structure of the eyes, front or feet of their 

 specimens ? Even Guenee's acquaintance with the decisive characters 

 of the matei-ial he arranged was quite fragmentary. In the same genus 

 he places species with hairy and with naked eyes and the armature of 

 the tibige, the characters drawn from the vestiture are too often entirel}' 

 neglected. All these considerations make a study of the generic 

 synonymy of the Noctuidae a necessity, so that we may be finally 

 agreed, all over the world, upon what is meant by a generic name, and 

 what types alone it should cover. When I came to study the American 

 Noctuidae, I found that some of Guenee's Hadenas were Maniesf7-as, or 

 vice versa, and my main work has been directed to bringing our 

 described American species into generic corresiDondence with the 

 European, as determined by modern autliorities, such as Lederer and 

 those who have followed this method of arranging the material. Only 

 in this way can the geographical distribution of the Noctuidae be 

 studied with comparative exactness. 



DiPHTHERA, Hiibn., 1806.— Type : D. orion.—1806. Hiibn., Tent.: 

 aprilina {or ion) ; only species, therefore tyjie. This name is incorrectly 

 accredited to Ochsenheimer, though the latter quotes Hiibner, correcting, 

 at the same time, Hiibner's mistaken identification of aprilina. Orion 

 is therefore type. One American species : fallax, H.-S. — 1816. Ochs., 

 4, 63 : coenohita, ludifica, orion. 



