284 THE entomologist's record. 



I have taken the t^q^e of Mamestra, Ochs. 1816, to be M. ins't L., 

 List N. Am. Noct., Buff. Bull., 12, 1874. The generic name, in 

 1818, is restricted by Hiibner to pisi, nnaminis and leucopliaca, and the 

 designation of pisi as type encounters no objection, since this s^DCcies 

 falls in with the definition of the modern genus Mamestra, in fact, 

 represents it typically, and is a good example of a hairy-e^^ed 

 Hadenoid form. Nor am I able to find a single objection in 

 literature to this course, in which I seem to follow precedent. The 

 case of the generic name Hadena, used by Lederer as the name of a 

 tj^pical Hadenoid genus with naked eyes, is however very different. 

 Originally proposed for twelve dissonant species, some with hairy, others 

 with naked eyes, it contains among them the type of Mamestra. In fact, 

 the earlier use of Hadena, and even at times its recent use, for the species 

 in Europe, is indifferent in this resj^ect. Lederer, in fact, seems to 

 have taken a very old name (Schrank, 1802) for a genus of typical 

 naked-eyed Hadenoid Owlet Moths, without reference to the characters 

 of the species for which it was originally proposed, and eij^ually without 

 reference to its subsequent restriction, or to the generic names erected 

 by Stephens for species referred in 1857 by Lederer to his genus Eadena. 

 The name Hadena is the oldest for any of the group I have called 

 Hadenini. The generic names Agrotis and Hadena are, in fact, names 

 used by systematists of the past sixty years to conjure with. Almost 

 everywhere they were used in a loose and improj^er manner. Now, by 

 reference to the Tentamen, certainty is obtained as regards the use of 

 Agrotis. Its type is segetiim, and this ajjjDlication covers also the modern 

 use of the generic name. But I have shown in The Entomologist's Record, 

 that the type of Hadena prevents the further use of this name for the 

 modern naked-eyed genus erected by Lederer and adopted by 

 Staudinger, since this type, cucubali, has hairy eyes, and belongs to 

 Boisduval's genus Dianthoecia. It is clear that the true type of 

 Hadena must be one of the twelve species originally referred to the 

 genus liy its author. Not one of these tAvelve belongs to the modern 

 genus Hadena, in sensu Lederer. Three of these original species of 

 Schrank's are taken by Ochsenheimer, the next authority, in 1816, into 

 the genus Hadena, and the other nine excluded. The three are meticulosa, 

 lucipara and cucubali. The two first have naked, the last haiiy, eyes. 

 The next authority is Hiibner (1818), and of the three included by 

 Ochsenheimer (1816), he retains only cucubali. This is, then, the 

 genuine " Triibeule," the true Hadena. All others would appear to 

 be spurious. Nor will it help us to go back to Schrank and take our 

 choice of types, even if the rules of nomenclature permitted such a 

 course. The rest of the twelve are housed comfortably under different 

 modern genera, and one of the twelve it must be. In looking for the 

 original " Triibeule," I myself hoped to find a naked-eyed type for the 

 name. It would have been pleasant to have been able to confirm 

 Hadena in its modern use, as I did aforetime for Agrotis and Mamestra. 

 But already in 1874, I could find no type for this name. 



For the genus Hadena of Lederer and modern writers, I have now 

 proposed the collective name Helioscota, with the provisional type 

 miselioides. Under Helioscota, I arrange all tlie American species 

 referred in Smith's Catalogue to Hadena. This genus differs from 

 Hadena of Lederer, since there is first separated from that as generically 



