XXV111 INTRODUCTION. 



larval stage are strongly evident, and in the imago stage also they show 

 strong affinities with the Toxocampidce and other groups. Grote calls 

 them " Pyralidiform Noctuidce" a rather happy term as relating to them. 

 The same author names the group Deltoidincv, and suggests Herrich- 

 Schaffer as the first author who classed these with the NOCTU^E. He 

 writes : " Herrich-Schaffer showed that in their essential characters 

 they conform to the Noctuid type ; they are Pyralidiform NOCTUJE " 

 (' Canadian Entomologist/ vol. xxii., p. 146). However this may be, 

 it is clear that Staudinger, adopting Lederer's method, put the idea 

 into practical shape in his 'Catalog' of 1871, leaving out, however, 

 any reference to their deserving any special mention under their old 

 name (Deltoides), which he dropped altogether. He however retained 

 Guenee's main divisions Platydidce, Herminidce and Hypenidce, in his 

 arrangement of the species. The first is not British, but Grote uses the 

 two latter divisions, calling them, however, Herminiini and Hypenini, 

 and I must say the divisions seem very natural and hence very satis- 

 factory. 



Grote writes of these : " The third sub-family Deltoidince, Latr. 

 is remarkable for the resemblance to the PYRALIDJE : in fact, Packard, 

 in his excellent paper on the Noctuidce in the ' Proceedings of the 

 Portland Soc. Nat. Hist.,' excluded them as did some older authors pre- 

 ceding him, and considered them as PYHALID^E. But Herrich-Schaffer 

 showed that they were true NOCTUIDVE, and that the three groups 

 did not differ importantly in their structure. There can be no doubt 

 of the correctness of this view " (' Eevised Check List of North American 

 Noctuidae,' p. 45). 



But although we can accept Herrich-Schaffer's general principle, 

 he certainly did some unaccountable things in his detailed work, and 

 the removal of Schranckia (Tholmigcs) turfosalis and Rivula sericealis 

 into the Nycteolidce with Sarrothripa undulanus, Halms cMorana and H. 

 preuiruma, and that of Sophronia emortualis into the Leptosidce with 

 Aventia flexula and Phytometra cenea (viridartci), are altogether inexpli- 

 cable, and quite deserving of the criticism passed on them by Guenee. 

 Herrich-Schaffer's work moreover, had another good effect, in so 

 far as it caused Guenee to permanently differentiate and separate the 

 DELTOIDES from the PYRALIDES. 



Briefly summarising then, I would draw the special attention of 

 future workers in this group to the following suggestions: (1) 

 That Demas and Diloba are not NOCTIL/E. (2) That the Bryophilidce 

 have no close affinities with the Eombycoidce. (3) That the Leucanidce 

 is an unnatural group, the genus Leucania belonging to the Noctuidce, 

 and the Nonagrice to the Apamidce. (4) That the Hadenidce is 

 essentially identical with the Apamidce. (5) That the Xylinidce must 

 be so divided as to show the want of relationship between the genera 

 Xylma and Calocampa. (6) That the Amphipyridce should be sub- 

 divided, that the genera Ncenia and Mania have affinities with the 

 genera Triphana and Graphiphora, whilst Amphypyra has affinities 

 with the Caradrinidce. (7) That the Plusidce are less closely allied to 

 the Xylinidce than are the Eeliothidce. (8) That the affinities of the 

 Toxocampidce are rather with the Deltoides than with the Catocalidoe. 

 (9) That the Deltoides are in all essential characters, Noomaa. 



These are, of course, only generalisations for consideration. To 

 work the matter out fully would be beyond the scope of the present 

 paper. 



