INTRODUCTION. XXV 



phane by Grote), Lithomia, Calocampa and Xylomiges ; Cleophanini * ; 

 Cuculliini, containing only the genus Cucullia; Eurhipiini; Ingurini* 

 (Euteliini) ; Anomiini * ; Litoprosopini * ; Calpini ; Stiriini ; Plusiini 

 (thus following Staudinger in placing this group differently to Guenee), 

 agreeing generally with Plusidce, Bdv. ; Heliothini, agreeing with 

 Heliothidce, Bdv. ( Revised Check List of North American Noctuidae,' 

 J890, pp. 6-39, and 'Canadian Entomologist,' xxii., pp. 107-108). It 

 is only right to add that Mr. Grote states in his preface that he 

 published his ' Check List ' in order to bring the classification of the 

 North American NOCTU^E into some accord with that of the European 

 forms as displayed in the ' Catalog ' of Staudinger, based on the 

 system of Lederer, and thus, on this ground I presume, he gives the 

 Plusidce a place here. Of these families and their genera I would state 

 my opinion that Xylina and Calocampa are not at all nearly related, 

 and that Grote's sub-division of the Xylinidce above, although getting 

 rid of one of the difficulties of this heterogeneous group does not clear 

 the matter much. I also believe that the Nonagria species are essentially 

 Apamid, i.e., they are closely allied to the genera Gortyna and Hydrcecia, 

 whilst Leucania on the other hand belongs to the Agrotidce. In both 

 cases, there can be no doubt that the loss of colour and markings is due 

 to a similarity of habit and habitat, the latter also producing a similar 

 general facies, but this superficial similarity of the species does not 

 imply a relationship of Leucania to Nonagria or vice versa. 



There appears, therefore, to be only one essential point in which 

 these authorities differ in their classification of the Genuince of Guenee, 

 and that is in the position of the Plusidce. For myself, too, I must own 

 that I prefer Grote's sub-division of the Xylinidce into the two groups 

 Calocampini and Cucullini, although it is not carried out sufficiently to 

 separate the distinct genera Xylina and Calocampa, but on the whole 

 I think that such a sub-division is a more natural one, than leaving 

 the whole grouped together, but the sub-division certainly has not 

 been carried far enough. 



With regard to matters of detail. Guenee follows the Bombycoidce 

 with the Leucanidce. On the other hand, Staudinger places the latter 

 after the Apamidce and Hadenidas and in turn follows it with the 

 Caradrinidce. 



Guenee's remaining sub-class of the NOCTU^E-TRIFID^E, which he 

 terms Minores, contains four families which have representatives 

 in Britain, viz., Acontidce, Bdv., Erastridce, Gn., Anthophilidce, Bdv. and 

 Phalenoidce, Gn. (Brephides, H.-S.). The three former follow each 

 other in Staudinger's arrangement, being in turn followed by the 

 families in Guenee's sub-class Serpentince, one of the groups of NOCTU^E- 

 QUADRIFIDJE. Phalenoidce, Gn., Staudinger relegates to the end of the 

 NOCTU^E, making it under this name, a distinct sub-class connecting 

 the Deltoides and the GEOMETRY, but whilst I think its anomalous 

 characters certainly give it a title to be isolated as a separate sub- 

 class, I have left it among the NOCTU^E-TRIFID^E. Mr. Meyrick places 

 Brephides in the GEOMETRY, although the larva certainly shows no 

 characters in this direction (vide * Trans. Ent. Soc. London,' 1892, 

 and 'Eut. Record' etc., vol. iii., p. 110). 



Grote finds the following four North American tribes in the Minores 



* These have no European representatives. 



