1900.) GROTE—GORTYNA AND ALLIED GENERA. BoD 
impossible for it has been since 1816 the type of Gortyna. The only 
one of the original species which afforded an unemployed type is 
referred back by Guenée to Afsamea, viz., fibrosa (leucostigma). 
Guenée expressly says he only published-Aydrecia in the Jndex, 
but cites: ‘‘ Gz. #ss., p. 237,’ for this genus; it is not, however, 
in any of the textual parts of his essay and the paging is that 
of the Annales. Hydrecia is in the Index, at the close of the last 
paper, Zom. 10, 217, commencing with the page 235 and running 
up to page 250 of the Annales de la Société Entomologique de 
France. The title 2ssaz is so far misleading, since the series of 
papers seems to commence in 1837, Zom. 6, p. 219, under an- 
other title; but it is kept up after a fresh start on page 311, in 
1837, continues through 1838 and 1839, skips 1840, to conclude 
with the /zdex in 1841, as above cited. Prof. Smith writes of it 
as one might of an independent work, and, perhaps, fancies it is 
one and that it was published in 1837. But see how plain a tale 
will put him down. 
1857. Lederer, Woct. Hur., 119: Nictitans, then under B, with a 
difference in genitalia, micacea, petasitis (vindelicia), xan- 
thenes, illunata (lunata), borelii, mcesiaca, cervago. 
Lederer here extends the genus to all the species, except flavago, 
including type of Gortyna. And this is why I supposed that our 
yellow species, z. ¢., rigida, purpurifascia, etc., were congeneric 
with mzcacea, and should likewise be referred to Gortyna and why 
I regarded the section Hydrecia to be the same as Afamea, 
Lederer’s section A. For if mzcacea is correctly classified by 
Lederer as strictly congeneric with Xanthenes, it would follow that 
it is to Prof. Smith’s second section that Aydrecia belongs and 
not to his first. But there is clearly but one genus to be consid- 
ered which must be called Gortyna, as I have insisted in all my 
later lists. In zzc¢éztans there is an evident tuft on the first abdomi- 
nal and weaker ones on the two following segments. Lederer’s 
diagnosis should perhaps be here corrected. But the tufts are 
more or less evident: on thorax, behind the collar and on dorsum 
of abdomen ; there is no uniformity among the species in this re- 
spect, and since no use of the anal claspers can be permitted, for 
it would separate allied and bring together unrelated species, 
there are no characters upon which we can depend for a sharp 
division of the genus. If we descend to comparative details there 
