INTRODUCTION. 



late researches have shown that Arsilonche albovenosa is congeneric 

 with Acronycta rumicis and its allies, and this being so, A. henrici, which 

 is supposed by many to be identical with albovenosa, will have to be 

 removed from its location as determined by Grote. Our genus 

 Acronycta, Och. is supplanted in Grote's * Check List,' 1890, by 

 Apatela, HUbn., and (I am sure I do not know what those who object 

 to Dr. Chapman's division into three sub-genera will say to it) 

 Apatela is divided into no less than ten sub-genera to wit Tricena, 

 Hiibn. (including species resembling psi) ; Acronicta, Ochs. ; Meya- 

 cronycta, Grote ; Merolonche, Grote ; Apatela, Hiibn. ; Jochecera, Hiibn. 

 (including a species like alni) ; Lepitoreuma, Grote ; Arctomyscis, Hiibn. 

 (for a species named sperata), Mr. Butler * must have overlooked the 

 latter fact when he suggested that Dr. Chapman should use Arctomyscis 

 in place of Bisulcia for ligustri ; Mastiphanes, Grote and Eulonche, Grt. 



Guenee's GENUINE, with nine of its families represented in Britain, 

 is a much more natural division, but his arrangement of the included 

 families, and his distribution of the species in many of them is very 

 seriously open to question. Staudinger takes them (without however 

 using the terms) in the following order : Noctuidce, Gn. ; Apamidce, 

 Gn. and Hadenidce, Gn., combined ; Leucanidce, Gn. ; Caradrinidce, Bdv. ; 

 Orthosidce, Gn. and Cosmidce, Gn., combined ; Xylinidce, Gn. ; Heliothidce, 

 Bdv. with however, Amphipyridce, Gn. placed between the Caradrinidce 

 and Orthosidce ; the Plusidce, Bdv. between the Xylinidce and Heliothidce, 

 and the Gonopteridce, Gn. between the combined Orthosidce and Cosmidce 

 on the one hand and the Xylinidce on the other. With most of these 

 modifications I am inclined to agree. Apamidce and Hadenidce have no 

 really differential characters, or at any rate none, such as would warrant 

 us separating them into distinct families, and the Orthosidce and Cosmidce 

 are much in the same condition. As I have before remarked, ante, 

 vol. iv., p. 37, the position given to Amphipyra between Caradrinidce and 

 Orthosidce is a not at all unnatural one, whilst Ncenia and Mania, placed 

 as they are by Staudinger in the Hadenidce, would in my opinion find 

 more natural affinities in the Noctuidce, especially near Graphiphora 

 augur. I disagree with the position of the Plusidce in Staudinger's 

 arrangement, the Heliothidce being in my opinion more closely allied 

 to the Xylinidce ; besides, the Heliothidce belong to Guenee's great 

 division NOCTTLE-TRIFIDJE, whilst the Plusidce belong to the NOCTUJE- 

 QUAURIFID^}. The Xylinidce comprise a strange assemblage, grouped 

 apparently on a common facies due to their having adopted somewhat 

 similar appearances for protection in the imago state. Some of them 

 might possibly be referred to the Orthosidce, whilst, on the other hand, 

 it has been suggested from the study of its early stages, that Scope- 

 losoma satellitia belongs probably to the Xylinidce. 



Grote divides Guenee's GENUINE into the following : Agrotini, 

 agreeing generally with Noctuidce, Gn. ; Dicopini f ; Hadenini, agree- 

 ing generally with Apamidce, Gn. and Hadenidce, Gn. combined; 

 Arzamini f ; Nonagriini, agreeing with Leucanidce, Gn. ; Scolecocampini ; 

 Nolaphanini f ; Caradrini, agreeing with the Caradrinidce, Bdv. ; 

 Orthosiini, agreeing with the Orthosidce, Gn. and Cosmidce, Gn. com- 

 bined ; Calocampini, comprising only the genus Xylina (called Litho- 



*Vide Ent. Rec.' &c. vol. ii., p. 82 and pp. 104-106 j also 'Entom.' 1891, 

 pp. 111-112. 



t These have no European representatives. 



