Smith, Notes to Synopsis of Noctuide. -—43— 
45. Callopistria Hb. 
46. Yo this genus belongs the Diphthera fallax of Mr. Grote's cat- 
alorue. Dzphthera in sensu Lederer is an entirely different genus, 
47. The species of this genus known to me I do not consider as be- 
longing to Brvophila, in which they have been placed in the late check- 
list. 
48. In part only: the majority of the species belong to the next 
section. 
49. Very unsatisfactorily divided from Hadena: there is only a single 
species, common to both continents, and it differs from Aadena in noth- 
ing but the tuftings: the difference in this respect however is so remark- 
able that the genus is immediately recognized: Still I scarcely consider it 
as of a generic value. 
50. Phlogephora Guen., in part. Right here probably should come 
Conservula Grt, a genus which I dont know, but which is based on PAlo- 
gophora anodonta Guen. None of the gentlemen to whom I have written 
or whose collections I have examined know anything of this genus, nor 
could they inform me where it is described and I for my part have been 
unable to find anything concerning it except as above set forth. 
1. P. carneicosta has some flattened hair intermixed. 
1 
52. Lutri-opis Morr. I think belongs to this genus. I have the 
type, from Mr. Tepper’s collection, and except'the somewhat lighter form, 
and convex margin of primaries, I can discover no difference unless it’ be 
in the palpi, which in 2z/ricopis are shorter, more slender, and clothed 
with longer hair than in AZedichipiria. The difference such as itis, has nota 
xeneric value. A more misleading name by the way than Zu/ricopis as 
applied to mexid’s it would be difficult to find. 
53. Lpumorpha Hb. 
54. Pyrrhia Ab. Three American species are described of which 
I know only C. uméra. Of the European species some have the anterior 
tibia spined at tip and others have a corneous clypeal projection; none of 
our species I believe are so distinguished. 
55. Gortyna Hb. 
56. Apatela Hb. The majority of the species belong to this section, 
the other have been already alluded to. Some very divergent forms have 
been placed in this genus, and it will probably have to be very radically 
worked over befo.e it can be regarded as a “‘pure” genus. 
Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc., October 1882, Vol. V. 
