4 Miss A. E. Prout on some 



xii. p. 2, Hampson mentions the fact that many of the 

 Catocaline genera have close relatives in his Noctuiiipe, 

 suggesting a common origin between tlie two subfamilies ; 

 but he does not emphasize the point. In working throngh 

 these two subfamilies, however, I have been so constantly 

 struck by the close resemblance between genera in the two 

 that I have begun to doubt whether the spinous mid- tibia 

 can be a subfamily character at all. 



With a view to elucidating this point, specimens of 

 Cocytodes maura, Holl. (PI. VI. fig. 3), Cocytodes camlea, 

 Gn. (PI. VI. fig. 2) (Catocalinte), and Arete papuen.ns, Warr. 

 (PI. VI. fig. 1) (" Noctuinai"). li^^e been submitted to the 

 Rev. C. R. N. Burrows for dissection ; also specimens of 

 Achcea ahlunaris, Gn. (PI. VI. fig. 4) (CatocalinEe), and ilfimo- 

 jjhisma delunaris, Gn. (PI. VII. fig. 1) (" Noctuinai ''). With 

 regard to the Cocytodes and Arete species Mr. Burrows 

 writes : — " 3 & 4 (C. ccBrulea and A. papuensis, are more 

 close than 2 (C maura) to either." Of A. ablunaris (com- 

 paring it with M. delunaris) he writes, " Is a distinct species, 

 but 1 think undoubtedly belongs to the same ' genus/ so far 

 as we understand anything by the term genus. It is indeed 

 a close ' brother,^ with all the features the same, but different 

 in form and development." 



In view of these conclusions, and of the strong resemblance 

 between many other species which are divided by Hampson^s 

 use of the spinous mid-tibia as a subfamily character, it 

 seems not improbable that this character will ultimately 

 have to be discarded, and some other classification of these 

 large and very heterogeneous groups adopted in its stead, 

 especially in view of the following points: — 



(1) In some species only one or two spines seem to be 

 present — a form iutei'mediate between true Catocalinse and 

 " Noctuinae.'" 



(2) In other species the spines are only visible in the $ 

 (though possibly concealed in tlie ,$). 



(3) In several of the subfamilies the fore and hind tibiae 

 are sometimes spined, sometimes non-spined ; there seems 

 no logical reason why the mid-tibia should be of more sub- 

 family value than fore or hind tibia — especially considering 

 that, in the Trifids, it is the hind tibia that is taken to 

 characterize a subfamily (the Agrotinse), so that there is no 

 correspondence between the two groups. It is certainly rare 

 for the hind tibia to be spined and the mid-tibia unspined 

 (suggesting that the natural order of development is for the 

 spines to appear first on the mid-tibia) ; but this is by no 

 means a universal rule, for there are genera Jboth in the 



