SClENTlt'IC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 59 



attention to a curious circumstance to which we have not previously 

 called attention, viz., that in a paper which was published (perhaps 

 buried would be more correct) in The- Annals and Magazine of Naiural 

 Hixtory, 6th Series, No. 65, p. 396, May, 1893, Mr. Butler retracts 

 his remarkable views on Arroni/cta, put forth in 1879. Itwill be remem- 

 bered that Mr. A. G. Butler, in 1891, whilst Dr. Chapman's papers on 

 " The Genus Acronycta and its Allies " were running through the 

 Ent. Record, attempted to quarrel Avith Dr. Chapman's names — • 

 Viminia, Guspidia and Bisidria. It will also be remembered probably 

 by some, that I criticised f Ent. B^cord, vol. ii., p. 82) his views, and 

 that Dr. Chapman also criticised (Enf. Record, vol. i., pp. 269-270) 

 his remarkable paper on the genus, which was published in the Trans. 

 Ent. Soc. Loud., 1879. The matter then dropped, until by chance I 

 heard of the paper in Tlie Annals and Magazine of Natural Ilistori/, 

 referred to above. Here Mr. Butler writes : "A recent study of the 

 transformations of Acronycta in Abbott's unpublished volumes has 

 now clearly shown that the difference in the clothing and outline of 

 the larva characteristic of the Bombi/cid families, already referred to, 

 occurs in various species of the same group in Acronycta, and so are 

 valueless as indicative of their affinities. I am therefore obliged to 

 renounce my former opinion, and admit that Acronycta is, in truth, a 

 genus of Nocture, probably nearest allied to Polia." This climb down 

 does Mr. Butler great credit, although it had better have been made 

 in a magazine that most entomologists see. I would, however, remark 

 that it is curious that the date is so suspiciously subsequent to Dr. 

 Chapman's papers on the group (which were completed in 1893). But 

 Mr. Butler gives no hint of ever having heard of these papers, and 

 avers his recantation to be due to " a recent study of Abbott's unpub- 

 lished volumes." He goes on to discuss the subgenera of Acroncyta, 

 and gives a synopsis, which includes several curious anomalies. These 

 subgenera are : — 



1. Acronycta including leporina and 4 other species. 



2. Megacronycta ,, amcricana and 2 others. 



(This is really congeneric with aceris). 



3. Arctomyscis including aceris, euphrastae, and 4 other Viminiae. 



4. Apatela ,, ntegacephcda, oblirtita, and 13 others. 



5. Lepito ,, runiicis, and 13 others. 



6. Pharetra ,, auricoiiia, orientalis, iiioiyantliidis. 



7. Triaena ,, jjsi, and 20 others. 



8. Hybo)na ,, strigosa, and 2 others. 



9. Jocheaera ,, cdni, and 1 other. 



10. Mastiphanes ,, 2 species. 



11. Merolonche ,, 2 species. 



The anomalies will be self-evident to all my readers. For instance, 

 he places awericana, which is little more than a gigantic race of aceris 

 in a separate genus from that species ; aceris (^Cnspidia) itself, he 

 places with euphrasiac and others of the Viminia groiip in Arctomyscis. 

 In Apatela he places in^gacephala (a Guspidia), with ohlinita a Viminia), 

 and so on. Truly, Mr. Butler's peep into Mr. Abbott's unpublished 

 work has made confusion rather worse confounded. I admire Mr. 

 Butler for owning, in 1893, that he knew nothing of the matter when 

 he wrote his paper in 1879, and shall look forward earnestly to Mr. 

 Butler's paper on the subject in 1907.— J. W. Tutt. 



Note on Anther.ea mylitta. — In the spring of 1894, I had a few 



