302 



Coll. Kall. no material. 



Family Noctuidae. Whilst Packard (1895, p. 83) eiitirely sepa- 

 rated this family from the Bombyces^ he says (1905, p. 41) 

 "that in the SYMBOMBYCINAE the noctiiiform characters are 

 crowded back in the phylogeny of the group." 



Dyar (1899) describes some Rydroeciae and provcs the exis- 

 tence of a large s. prostignialis. 



Fracker (1915) devotes some pages (p. 111 — 118) to the owlet- 

 moths and describes the difïiculties he met with. 



He divides the family into four groups, "they are, however, 

 pnrely for convenience and do not constitute a natural arrange- 

 ment." His groups are: 



/. Larvae with primary setae only. The pattern agrees with 

 that of Maniestra and Bepressaria (see below). 



ïo this not a single Acronycta species belongs, otherwise the 

 greater part of the genera. 



II. Larvae with well developed verriicae, arranged as in Arctiidae 

 but y. {d. prostiginalis) is often small and on segment 7 it stands on a 

 lower level than on 6 and 8. To these belong the Acronyctinae in part. 



III. Larvae with verrucae which are obscured by the deve- 

 lopment of secondary setae. Acronycta in part. 



IV. Verrucae reduced to single setae, although preceeded by well 

 developed tufts in earlier stages ; [j. {= v. hasalis) remains present 

 as verruca, which is very peculiar as a proof of the pseudo-primitive 

 character. Acronycta in part. 



Fracker (1915, PI. III and IV) also describes FeJtia r/Iandaria 

 instar I and fuU-fed. We find here the following peculiarities : 



a. instar I has no s. infrastlf/nialis (v) on the prothorax, though 

 we do find it on the full-grown form. 



b. instar 1 has no s. prostigmalis {e) on the abdomen, but gets 

 one in maturity. 



In the last case, supposing it really has been stated rightly, I 

 presume that Fracker's labeling is not correct. For then the 

 seta on the abdomen is either subprimary or secondary and on 

 the thorax he calls it a primary seta, whilst he says on p. 21 



