xx ii INTRODUCTION. 



tophoridce, H.-S. be considers Noomas of equal value to BOMBVCES, 

 but without giving a single division of equal value to these just 

 mentioned in the BOMBYCES with the one exception of Brephides, 

 consisting of the single genus Brephos. Not even the Delto'ides which 

 he includes in the NOCTILE have such a distinction. And there is some- 

 thing to be said for his view of the matter, for the NOCTU^E are a 

 compact group and as a whole are in no wise made up of such a mass 

 of heterogeneous material as are the BOMBYCES. I think, however, 

 the TRIFIDJE and QUADRIFIDJE of Guene'e are valuable, and at any rate 

 show marked structural characters, which vary considerably in the 

 two groups. The removal of the Cymatophoridce, H.-S., therefore, 

 whilst only adding one more family or group to the already 

 heterogeneous mass in the BOMBYCES, certainly leaves the NOCTILE 

 still more compact and clearly defined. 



Grote re-names the Cymatophoridce of Herrich-Schaffer 

 Thyatirince, treating it as a group of equal value with his Noctuince 

 which agrees almost entirely with Guene'e's NOCTU^E-TRIFIDJE, ex- 

 clusive of course of Cymatophoridce. Of the Thyatirince he writes : 

 "It contains a few genera of varying appearance united by the 

 neuration : vein 5 of the primaries being equidistant between 4 and 6, 

 but so it seems in Nolaphana, and vein 7 of secondaries springing from 

 the anterior margin of the median cell. The caterpillars are naked, 

 16-footed, and resemble somewhat the Notodontince. Of our Thyatira 

 pudens, Mr. Dyar carefully describes the larva. The genus Thyatira 

 (including Habrosyne) was formerly referred near Plusia and Hiibner 

 first associated it with Bombycia " (' Eevised Check-List of the North 

 American Noctuidse,' p. 44). He further writes : " The Bombyciform 

 Noctuidce or Thyatirince differ in certain details of the neuration from 

 the Noctuince (Noctuce-nonfasciatce), and the question comes up as to the 

 value of this character for classification. In all other respects, this 

 small assemblage of moths must be considered as belonging to the 

 NOCTU^E. The palpi, though short, have the Noctuid form. The eyes 

 are sometimes naked, sometimes hairy. The legs, though somewhat 

 short, are not unlike those of other owlet moths ; the fore pair have 

 a tibial epiphysis so far as known to me. The fore wings are sub- 

 triangular with pointed apices. The resemblance to the Notodontince 

 is seen in the neuration of the primaries where vein 5 is intermediate. 

 This character of vein 5 of the fore wings is, perhaps, of more value 

 than the variations of the secondary costal veins. The difference in 

 the position of vein 7 of the hind wings is, perhaps, not so important 

 when we see that in Stilbia and Rivula, vein 8 springs from 7, the 

 upper margin of the median cell " (' Canadian Entomologist,' vol. xxii., 

 p. 105). Grote seems to have overlooked, or not to have observed 

 that the ova do not conform to the * Noctuid type.' I would here 

 also remark that Grote replaces the generic name Cymatophora, Tr., 

 with that of Bombycia, Hiibn. 



Guenee and Grote, therefore, consider that the Cymatophoridce are 

 really Nocmas. Staudinger on the other hand considers them as a 

 group of the BOMBYCES. For myself, I do not think it matters much 

 in which division they are placed. They are essentially a connecting 

 group between two divisions in no way very clearly defined at their 

 extremes, and whether we call the Cymatophoridce a sub-class of 

 BOMBYCES and place them at the end of this division, or a sub-class of 



