PREFACE 



The present list of names of described species of North 

 American Moths, is as correct and complete as I can make it in the 

 present state of our knowledge of the families here included. I 

 have followed the name of the species with that of its author, 

 without reference to the genus under which it was originally pub- 

 lished. I have adopted such of Hubner's generic names as have 

 been used by good authorities on the literature and structure of 

 this group of insects. Only in a few instances (e. g. LitJiopJiane) 

 does this use originate with myself, and I have given special 

 reasons for the procedure. In the case cited the name JVj///«(7 has 

 been usually employed. This name, as I have shown in my 

 " Check List " of the Noctuidm, is originally proposed by Hubner 

 for a species belonging to the genus Hadena. Ochsenheimer takes 

 it from Hubner, citing him as authority, and uses it for a mixed 

 assortment of species, including some Lithophanes and Hadenas, 

 together with other European Noctuids now placed under differ- 

 ent genera. In the meantime Hubner includes Socia under his 

 genus LitJiophane, and I have taken this as the type of the genus, 

 properly rejecting Xylina as a synonym of Hadena. The name 

 Lithophane is, thus, the correct one for the genus, and is quite 

 euphonious and otherwise unobjectionable. Its signification is 

 quite expressive of the appearance of the species for which it is 

 used, and the same Greek word is taken (in a different connec- 

 tion) for a genus in the same group by Stephens (e. g. Lithoniia). 

 I have also restored Hubner's authority to genera like Agrotis, 

 a name originally proposed by him, and credited to him by 

 Ochsenheimer, but afterwards appropriated by various writers. 

 There is nothing in my adoption of Hubner's names which can 

 be fairly criticized, unless it be claimed that this writer should be 

 totally ignored for genera. But no author whom I have studied 

 has rejected Hubner entirely. His generic names have been used 

 by all, so evidently proper have a number of them proved to be. 

 So far as the number of genera here retained is concerned, I have 

 not willingly adopted one not resting on real structural charac- 

 ters. Certain writers in effect overlook all characters which 

 necessitate a close or microscopic examination. Their classifica- 

 tion depends upon their arbitrary idea of what species belong to 

 a genus. It would be impossible to draw up a diagnosis of the 

 genus Eudryas, for instance, as arranged by them, and including 

 in it the species of Copidryas and Ciris. If we examine the 

 neuration, the mouth, the clypens, we will find that Gloveri dif- 



