Noctuidtie in the Joicey Collection. 3 



the win^s are " black, reticulated and clou(]ed^'; and in the 

 later fniler description in the -''Museum Ludoricse Ulricse" 

 he further says " nee alas deutalus nee liugicam observo/' 

 In view of these descriptions and of the fact that Linne's 

 type of strix is still in the Queen Louisa Ulrica Collection 

 (which never possessed a specimen of Thysania agrippina) 

 it seems quite certain that Linno's Nocfua strix was the 

 common S. A.siatic Cossid, which was figured and described 

 by Clerck as strix, L. Therefore (as Aurivillius concluded 

 his remarks by pointing out), "anyone who is of opinion 

 that the first species is to be considered typical would have 

 in consequence to consider the Cossids as the ti'ue Noctuids^' ! 

 The name Erebinse (employed by Barnes and McDunncmgh in 

 their 'Check-List of the N. American Lepidoptera ') seems 

 also, unfortunately, to be untenable, as Latreille appears to 

 cite crepuscularis, h., as his type oi Erebus, and odora, L., only 

 as an additional species ; this necessitates the transfer of 

 the name Erebus to the Catocaliue genus Nyctipao (see Cat. 

 Lep. Phal. xiii. p. 331), odora becoming (according to 

 Hampson) Otosema udora. It seems necessary, therefore, 

 to select some other subfamily name, and, in the meantime, 

 I have chosen Ophiderinse. 



My other point of difference from Sir George Hampson 

 opens up a wider question than one of mere nomenclature. 

 It is with regard to the classification of the subfamilies 

 Catocalinse and Ophideriuse. 



The Rev. C. R. N. Burrows has called my attention to 

 the wide divergence between the genitalia of the genus 

 Catocala and immediately allied genera and those of Acantho- 

 dica, Erebus (Nyctipao), Speiredonia, Ercheia, and others of 

 the later (Catocaliue genera submitted to him, the latter all 

 having very large coremata (entirely wanting in true Cato- 

 cala). jNlr. Burrows strongly urges that these two groups 

 should be separated, and, in view^ of the very distinct early 

 stages of Catocala (mentioned by American authors, who 

 have no doubt had opportunities of comparison with the 

 early stages of some of the exotic species of Hampson's 

 Catocaliufe).,as well as the difterence of genitalia, it seems very 

 probable that the Catocala group of species will ultimately 

 be found to form a distinct subfamily, although I have not 

 as yet been able to discover any structural point, apart from 

 the genitalia, which will form a good key-distinction for the 

 subfamily. I shall be grateful for any information which 

 may help to throw light on this interesting question. 



A further question arises with regard to the sei)aration of 

 certain apparently closely-allied species. In Cat. Lcp. Phal. 



