NOTICES AND REVIEWS. 71 



quaint phrases in which American entomologists sometimes indulge 

 when they wish to point out to us that they liope soon to prove that a 

 species, hitherto considered identical with a European species, is really 

 distinct. It always appears as if they wei'e on the look-out for a 

 deformed leg, a mummified antenna, or something of the kind. Such a 

 phxvase as : " The species has not been critically studied, and the true 

 relation of tlie form is yet in donl)t. The American form may yet 

 prove distinct, though a very close ally to the European insect," will 

 bear no other construction. Why not get the larva and })upa and 

 prove it, instead of looking so far into futurity ? Bri/ophiht, which has 

 much less affinity with Acfoni/cta than has Ma)ii<'str<i, still maintains 

 its old position, whilst the genus Ai/rofis has proved a gold mine to the 

 worthy Professor. One does not mind so much the names of 

 the sub-divisions as the grouping of the species therein. Fancy a 

 European collector being confronted with Rliynchagrotis, Adelpha- 

 (jrotis, riatagrotis, Enreptagrotis, Ahagrotis, Setagrotis, Chorlzagrotis, 

 (to. We wonder what he would think of them. One of the best 

 known sub-divisions of Agrotis is Peridro)iia. In this sub-genus (or as 

 Professor Smith prefers it — genus) ai-e found Aplecta occulta, Linn, 

 and P. saucia. Will the author tell us a single character in the egg, 

 larva, pupa, or even in the imago, which associates them ? The very 

 imaginal characters themselves condemn this position, especially when 

 P. saucia and Agrotis ypsilon get placed in different genera. But we 

 are pleased to see that Prof. Smith uses Noctna as it undoubtedly 

 ought to be used. Our tritici-like Agrotes come under Feltia, a resur- 

 rected name of Walker's ; resurrected for what purpose ? Will Mr. 

 Smith tell us that there is as much difference between Feltia and 

 Pcridroina as between Acronycta and T>ryop)hila. Surely, Feltia and 

 Peridroma, at the best, are but sub-generic names for the use of the 

 specialist. On p. 81, Prof. Smith refers to Ilaworth's subgothira. He 

 says that he has not seen Haworth's work, but this is undoubtedly only 

 a variety of the European Agrotis tritici, and is fully dealt with as such, 

 in The British Noctnae and their Varieties, vol. II,, p. 51. Considering 

 the fact that Prof. Smith considers the Agrotis sub-divisions as sub- 

 genera, it reads very ingenuous on page 131, where he says " This 

 genus (Iladetia) will probably stand sub-division into several genera. 

 Two rather well-marked groups or sub-genera, Xyloj^hasia and Lnpe- 

 rina, have been monographed by me. ... It is likely that, eventually, 

 both of these sub-divisions will take generic rank." Does Prof. Smith 

 really not know that Luperina and Xylophasia are now, and have been 

 for a large number of years, used as representing groups of generic 

 rank, at any rate in Britain, and that something more than a note of 

 this kind is required, to explain to British entomologists why they are 

 wrong ? The onus of proof surely rests on Prof. Smith, and it is much 

 to be regretted that old land-marks are swept away (or, as happens 

 here, re-introduced, as if the author had never heard of their use in the 

 sense ho mentions), without explanation. Our exnlis gets into this sub- 

 genus Xylophasia, according to Prof. Smith. It would be interesting 

 to Britishers to know how it is tliat their generic usage is here so far 

 wrong. Again, on p. 155 a characteristic phrase occurs, showing the 

 tendency to separate the European and American records of common 

 species, the reverse of the spirit which is seeking to bring into inii- 

 formity the work of the two areas. Only so far as this is done, is the 

 catalogue-maker rendering the slightest service to progressive science. 



