ae. 
Acedia, Hb., was omitted from the Synopsis by accident, its synop- 
tic formula is: Eyes naked; tibianot spinulated; anterior unarmed; pal- 
pi greatly exceeding the front; vestiture scaly: legs closely scaled: (¥‘ an- 
tenne ciliate: wings comparatively short, fringes long. ‘Thorax with a 
Plusia \ike posterior tuft; abdomen with dorsal tufts. 
Agassizia, Behr. Yrans. Ent. Soesehilt Vol) Il, p. 23: 
I give the original description:— 
Genus maxime singulare inter Boletobium et Xyliodes, Gn interme- 
dium, differt a Boletobia conformatione palporum qui cum palpis Xylio- 
dis a cel Gnenee descriptis omnino congruunt. A. Xyliode longe distat 
et forma alarum et venarum distributione qua cum Boletobia fere conve- 
nit sed tamen non congruit. Quum vero specimina perpauca que possi- 
deo squamis denudare non ausus venarum fabricam exacte describere 
nolui dum copia speciminum denudare et destruere permittat. 
This gives little informatign and is scarcely sufficient to enable the 
genus to be recognized. ; ; 
Audela, Wk. Can. Nat. and Geol. 
_ ‘Male. Body thick, very pilose. Proboscis short, feeble. Palpi 
short, slender, obliquely ascending, third joint elongate, conical, less 
than half the length of the second. Antenne slightly pectinate; branch- 
es subclavate. Abdomen depressed, quadrate at tip, extending a little 
beyond the hind wings, Legs stout, very pilose; spurs rather short. 
Wings stout, moderately broad. Fore wings somewhat rounded at tip; 
costa straight; exterior broader hardly convex, rather oblique; interior 
angle not prominent. 
Mr. Grote in Bull. Geol. Survey of Terr. Vol. p. refers Pan- 
thea leucomela Morr. to this genus and says it is a synonym of Acronycto- 
ades, Wk. 
I believe I have now noticed in the synopsis and notes, all the gen- 
era recognized by Mr. Grote in his check-list of 1876 and all the subse- 
quent genera, catalogued in Gerhard’s list of 1878 and the Check-List of 
the Brooklyn Ent. Soc. of 1882. Many Noctuid genera other than those 
that are recognized in these lists have been described—-a very large pro- 
portion of them by Mr. Grote—and have disappeared: some silently with 
scarce a record of the reason for their rejection being indicated in ‘‘Notes 
on some species of American Noctuids” and some after a fierce battle of 
authors. I have throughout my work and researches very generally ac- 
cepted Mr. Grote’s determinations and synonymic references, and have 
become convinced from my examination of the older works that his labors 
in the way of identifying species described in them were immense; I have 
