380 



2. Nupta, Linn. 



3. sponsa, Linn. 



4. promissa, Linn. 

 *5. eonjuncta, Esj). 



Tr. XVI. Phalcenoidi, Gue, 

 Brephos, Och. 



1. Parthenias, Linn. 



2. notha, Hub. 



Tr. XVII. Acontidi, Bois. 

 ACONTIA, Ocli. 



*1. Solaris, W. V. 

 2. luctuosa, W. V. 



Tr.XVIII. Noctuo-Phalcp- 



nidi, Bois. 

 EUCLIDIA, Och. 



1. Mi, Linn. 



2. glyphica, Linn. 

 MiCRA, Guen. 



1. ostrina, Hub. 



2. minuta. Hub. 

 Stilbia, Steph. 



I. anomalata, Haiv. 

 Erastria, Och. 



1. venustula, Hub. 



2, fuscula, Och. 



Hydrelia, Guen. 



1 . argentula, Esp. 



2. unca, Esp. 

 Agrophila, Bois. 



1. sulphurea, Huh. 

 Phytometra, Steph. 



1. Eenea, Bork. 

 AcosMETiA, Steph. 

 § 1 . lutescens, Haw. 

 §2. caliginosa, Hub. 

 §3. rufula, Haiv. 

 §4. Jineola, Steph. 

 §5. arcuosa, Haw. 



OBSERVATIONS. 



Those species with an * prefixed appear to have been introduced 

 into the British Ust on rather doubtful authority ; those with a § are 

 good species and decidedly British, and probably are enumerated by 

 Guenee under other names, but I have not at this time the means of 

 deciding the question. 



Apatela Leporina and Bradyporina. These I have no doubt are 

 one species : the larva, when young, is covered with yellow hairs, and 

 has three or four black tufts down the back, in the last skin pale green 

 with whitish hairs. 



Apa?neajecalina. The insect known by this name in Britain is 

 very distinct fi-om any variety of A. didyma, but it is doubtful if the 

 secalina of Hubner is any more than a variety. By what name our 

 species is known on the continent I cannot clearly decide. 



Xylopkasia rurea and comhusta. I think these two reputed species 

 are only one. 



Triphcena suhsequa ? Mr. Curtis has a Scotch insect certainly dis- 

 tinct from Orbona, but I am doubtful if it be Hubner's subsequa. 



Noctua hella. This insect has been always called punicea in Bri- 

 tain, but incorrectly. 



Cerastis spadicea. In a few remarks I made last autumn, I men- 

 tioned my belief that we had two very distinct species of Glaea or 

 Cerastis, both of which varied greatly, but were easily distinguished 

 by the form of the upper wings. In this opinion I am confirmed by 

 Guenee, who states the one with acute upper wings to be the true 

 spadicea of Hubner, though that name has been applied here to a va- 

 riety of Vaccinii. Whether Mr. Haworth clearly understood the spe- 

 cies is doubtful, as his name subnigra may apply to varieties of either 

 species. The species will stand thus : — 



