THE HADENOID GENERA WITFI HAIRY EYES. 285 



distinct, the species of Xylophasia, Steph. and the species of Miana, 

 iSteph. There remains a series of moderately robust forms in America, 

 of wliicli our common miselioides seems a fair example. But all these 

 species remain to be compared with the European, and, by farther 

 restriction, Helioscota may come to have a different type, which may 

 be any one of the thirt^'-four species listed by Smith, the residue of 

 the contents of the former genus Hadena of my lists, in which I 

 followed Lederer's extension of the term. 



The material before me at this moment is quite insufficient to 

 attempt any study which would clear this synonymy definitely. The 

 generic names, the proper application of which is to be studied, are, 

 first, Xi/Iena, Hiibn., 1806, with its type UthoxyJea, which establishes 

 this term as against Xylophasia. We then come to Oligia, Hiibn., 1818. 

 In America 1 have used Oliyia for slight-bodied Hadenoid forms, 

 ])resumably structurally identical with the 0. strigilis, L. These 

 American species are treated monographically by J. B. Smith (Ent. 

 Am., V. 145), where, however, Verzeichniss "404" is cited, apparently 

 inaccurately. The citation is, 213, Nos. 2124-8. The tyj^e of Oliyial 

 have taken to be strigilis, but it would seem from authors, that Hiibner's 

 genus has unmixed contents, all five species agreeing structurally. 

 It is, I believe, to this genus that Stephens' type of Miana belongs, but 

 in the absence of the work itself I cannot be certain. Another genus 

 is Odlierijis, Hiibn., but the contents of this are so incongruous that the 

 name is probably unavailalile ; one of the species, ophiogratiuaa, may be 

 congeneric with strigilix. I have assumed that Celaena has for its type 

 Jut war til a, and that this species forms the type of a distinct and peculiar 

 genus ; whether this is really the same as Luperina, Led. (nee. Boisd., 

 1829), I have not the material to decide, nor have I been able to find 

 the true type of Boisduval's genus. Smith's use of Luperina is 

 unfounded. Whether the American forms referred by me to Oligia 

 agTee with this type, has not been ascertained by direct comparison. 

 Mr. Smith, in addition to a quotation of the structural characters given 

 by me, gives us as a peculiarity in maculation, that the t.p. line is 

 always even and a little outwardly oblique from costa, while he also 

 describes and figures the genitalia. What is needed, then, is a full 

 comparison of all the species referred by Lederer in Europe to Hadena 

 with our American forms and, the limits of generic groups being thus 

 ascertained, the application of names extant in literature to these 

 groups, after fixing the true tj^pe for each name. 



To return to Mamestra. In America the species of Dianthoecia are 

 not eliminated b^^ authors, both genera having hairy eyes, while from 

 cabinet material alone, the genera cannot be readily recognised and 

 ke})t a})art. When the larvaj and pupa^ are known and the habits of 

 the American species discovered, it appeal's to me certain that the two 

 genera will be recognised also in America. At one time I made the 

 attempt to separate the American species of Dianthoecia, but afterwards 

 abandoned it, partly owing to my small material and partly to the absence 

 of certainty in the characters of the imagines alone. The species indicated 

 by me as belonging to Dianthoecia, viz. : insolens, Grt., meditata, Grt., 

 Instralis, Grt., capsularis, Gn.. etc., have been more recently distributed 

 in various groups of Mamestra by Mr. Smith — groups based on different 

 characters from those assigned to Dianthoecia. In my list of 18'J0, I 

 gave twenty presumed species of North American Dianthoecia. 



The results of these observations of mine upon the Hadenoid genera, 



