70 GROTE & ROBINSON. 



F.ibricius' work that it is the United States species which should retiiia 

 the name rubicunda, and the Brazilian species receive the new specific 

 name. Kelying on Mr. Walker's generic determination and following 

 out the apparent facts of the case, Mr. (Jrote has referred the Urj/. 

 oenusta of Mr. Walker as a synonym of Fabricius' species and pi'oposed 

 for the Dn/ nihicmida Walk., a necessarily new name, choosing that 

 of Br^. Walkerii. Upon an examination of the specimens of Drijo- 

 ranipa venusta, Walk., however, it is seen to be a male individual of 

 Hyparpax aurora (Smith) H'dbucr ! — the female of which is described 

 afterwards with a wrong locality as San gat a rosea ! 



In the Noctuidae the errors are still more confusing and the diffi- 

 cult species are most inadequately described by Mr. Walker. Fdtia 

 (lucpns, Walk., (n. g. et sp.I) is Agrotis subgothica; Maynestra {!) pfa- 

 g!at(i, Walk., is Noctua bicarnea, Guenea; Xi/Una (/) contraria, Walk., 

 is Hadena xylinoides, Guenef. The genus Microphysa contains, 

 among others, two species of P]pizeuxis, lluhn. {Ilelia, Guenee), one 

 of Anthoecia, BoUd., and another of Drasteria, H'dbn. Perhaps 

 in the whole Family no three more dissimilar genera can be found 

 than these three, species belonging to which are arranged under a 

 fourth but distantly related to them. This same species of Anthoecia 

 (A. rivii/osa, Guen.,) is described additionally as Anihophila diva-gens 

 and EncJidia (!) designata, besides figuring as Micropliijsa contracta ! 

 Again FoaphUa scixsa, Walk., is ]*anopoda carneicosta, Guenee- Poa- 

 jjhda a»iy>//.SA/rt?a, Walk., is Parallelia bistriaria, H'dbner ; and Poa- 

 j)hda nanata. Walk., is a species of Drasteria ! 



The following descriptions of species referred to Hypena by Mr. 

 Walker viz : //. genrralis, IT. rujina/ii, H. idaeusa/is. H. cacaminalis, 

 H. /ia/jif<di!<, If. sobria/is, H. factissalls, H. caecaJiit. are to be rejected 

 from that genus and should be entirely ignored, since the specimens 

 upon which they are foutided are so defective that the species are 

 irrecognizable and, instead of belonging to the Deltoid or Xoctuid 

 genus to which they are referred, they belong to difl'erent genera of 

 (.^rambidae and Tineidae. 



The limited time which we could devote to our studies in the Bri- 

 tish Museum during our stay in England, has prevented our synouy- 

 mical references from being as full as we could have wished. Such 

 as they are, they will, we trust, considerably reduce the number of 

 Mr. Walker's species over the descriptions of which the student has 

 to pore and expend his time and thought too often in vain. We 

 hope that the attention of those in Authority may be drawn to the 



