THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 83 



me that there have been altogether too many genera made, and in 

 some instances on the most trivial grounds ; and as for families, 

 their name is legion. In some instances the species of one have 

 been made to form no less than eighteen (18) distinct genera (vide 

 Meyrick, Trans. New Zealand Inst., p. 3, 1886). This in itself 

 is startling enough, but when one finds species of Agrotis. 

 Mamestra, &c, referred to distinct families, the work of an 

 entomologist, situated as we are in Australia, becomes very 

 difficult. It seems in the past to have been considered the 

 correct (?) thing to form a family for every ten or twelve genera. 

 This has retarded more than helped students, and makes the 

 whole subject vexatious. I thoroughly coincide with Meyrick's 

 opinion, i.e. : — " No genus, family, or higher group is tenable 

 unless distinctly separable (the italics are mine) from all others 

 by points of structure, which, whether singly or in conjunction, 

 are capable of accurate definition " (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., p. 

 430, 1890). Such families as Orthosidw, Agrotidce, &c, are 

 useless and of no scientific value, and although hardly willing to 

 recognize only two (2) families, as Mr. Meyrick suggests, it might 

 after all be more practical. Meyrick's idea is, I believe, to 

 form the group into two families, viz.: — Noctuidce. (hind wings 

 with vein 5 imperfect, parallel to 4) ; and Plusiadce (hind wings 

 with vein 5 well developed, approximated to 4 towards base). 

 Certainly very simple, easily discernible, and seemingly natural ; 

 but I would, however, have preferred also the Orphideridce and 

 Hypenidai. Both these families have — that is, so far as the Aus- 

 tralian forms are concerned — curious and apparently well-marked 

 characters in the palpi which make them easy of recognition. I 

 merely throw out the suggestion for what it is worth. It matters 

 little, however, whether we have one large section — i.e., Noctuina — 

 or fifty different families in the arrangement of the whole group, 

 but we want something workable. The arrangement here given, 

 although imperfect, is that adopted by myself, and I hope will 

 fulfil all requirements for the present. Every author consulted 

 has a different method, or else uses different genera for the same 

 species, which makes a good arrangement impossible : in con- 

 sequence of this no particular author is followed. Mr. Henry 

 Tryon, of Brisbane, has kindly placed his notes at my disposal, 

 for which I here tender my thanks ; and Mr. Butler's recent 

 papers on the synonymy of the group have helped me not a little. 

 The present list, though imperfect, is intended as a nucleus of 

 something better to follow. I am busy preparing a catalogue 

 of the whole of the Australian Heterocera, which I hope will be 

 more perfect in detail than the present effort. I have purposely 

 omitted several of the reputed Australian genera ; there are, 

 however, sufficient enumerated to make the arranging of any 

 omitted genera an easy matter. 



