a9) _. 
NOTES TO THE SYNOPSIS. 
1. Oxylos Grt., and Heliochilus, Grt. I do not consider distinct 
from Heliothis. J can see nothing in Oxylos which would suffice for a 
generic distinction, while e/ochilus is based ona peculiarity in vena- 
tion which if it were equal in both sexes would authorize the separation; 
but the peculiarity is found in the male only, while the female is a true 
Fiehothis and is in nothing distinct from that genus. Mere sexual diff- 
erences should never authorize a genus, unless there are some points in 
the other sex as, well, which would suffice for a separation. In such case 
the sexual distinction would add to the value of the other charactaristics. 
2. Congeneric with this, are Porrzma Grt., and Rhodophora, Guen. 
The former seems to differ in being rather’ more coarsely haired, more 
wooly beneath, having the primaries a little wider, and the fringes longer. 
The latter has the vestiture a little finer and the palpi slightly drooping 
instead of horizontal: there is also a very slight difference in the armature 
of the anterior tibia; but carefully compared with each other, the conclu- 
sion that they are identical is irresistable: not only do they agree in out- 
line and general characteristics but even the coloration, slight as its gener- 
ic value is, would seem to bring them together. 
21. Very unsatisfactorily distinguished from Heliophana, and prob- 
ably identical with it. 
3. I am unable to find any sufficient characters to separate Shuma, 
Hb., Luleucypiera, Grt. and Triocnemis, Grt., from this genus: there is 
a slight difference in the armature of the anterior tibia, in the former the 
primaries are very slightly broader, the fringes longer, and the ornament- 
ation is apparently entirely different: close examination however reveals 
decided peculiarities common to all. Renewed examination leads me very 
strongly to the opinion that the genera I have grouped under A/arza also 
belong to this genus. The difference in vestiture is not so wide as to 
make the union indefensible,. and the variations in other respects are 
very much less than in many other genera—Heliofhis for instance—taking 
those of Europe in connection with our American species, I have also 
preferred Yamila Guen. to Shinia Hb., although Huebner’s genus has 
priority in point of time. The reasons for disregarding Huebner’s genera 
have been set forth by Prof. Hagen and Mr. W. H. Edwards and to their 
publications I refer the student. For my own part I will say that in the 
course of my studies I have been put to so much inconvenience, and so 
much trouble by imperfect descriptions, that I shall never recognise a ge- 
nus based only on a designated type, unless the description of the type 
contains the structural peculiarities, whereby the genus is distinguished. 
