2 Miss A. E. Proiit on some 



extremely difficult group less hard for those who come after 

 him. If^ in this and in papers I may subsequently publish, 

 the opportunity of studying larger material or some inde- 

 pendent light on the subject should lead me to differ from 

 Sir G. Hampson's conclusions, 1 shall do so always with 

 respectful remembrance of what I owe to his book and to 

 his careful working out of the National Collection, without 

 the aid of which my own work would scarcely have been 

 possible. 



I would also tender my thanks to Lord Rothschild, 

 Professor Poulton, and Mr. Bethuue- Baker for the loan of 

 types, to Mr. W. H. Tams for assistance given me in my work 

 at the British Museum, and especially to the Rev. C. R. N. 

 Burrows, who in the midst of his busy and stienuous life 

 has so kindly found time to work out the genitalia of various 

 Noctuidee submitted to him from the Hill Museum. The 

 illustrations on Plates I.-VII. are photographed from 

 drawings prepared by Mr. Burrows. 



Finally, I would tender sincerest thanks to my brother, 

 Mr. L, B. Prout, who has revised my manuscript, and who, 

 throughout my studies, has given me help aud advice as 

 to the best methods of specialized entomological work, 

 placing his own wide knowledge and experience freely at 

 my service. 



Note on Classification. 



In spite of Sir George Hampson's excellent work, there is 

 evidently much still needing elucidation, both w'ith regard 

 to the classification and the nomenclature of the Noctuidse ; 

 but in the following pa])er I have followed the system of 

 nomenclature first published in the Cat. Lep. Phal., except 

 in one or two instances. 



In Hampson's Phytometrinfe I have used the old familiar 

 name of Plusianse for the subfamily and Plusia for the 

 genus. For the Noctuina:^ I have temporarily employed 

 Gueuee's Ophideriuse — though the name is not a satisfactory 

 one, as Otiireis, Hbn., has priority over Ophideres, Boisd. 

 But Noctuiuee is obviously untenable, since, as Aurivillius 

 points out in his paper in Schwcd. Kilim. Exped. (9) p. 34 

 (1910), Hampson's use of the name Noctua .strix for 

 Thysunia agrippina is founded on a misconception, due to 

 Liune having erroneously cited to strix a figure in Merian's 

 " Insects of Surinam," and having been thereby led to con- 

 sider strix as an American species. Linnets own description 

 of strix distinctly mentions that it is '^ tongueless '' aud that 



