[June: 1884. BULLETIN BROORLYN ENTOM. SOC.-VOL. VII. 25 
sexual, should be very cautiously if ever allowed as a ground for generic 
separation. Differences, even greater, have not divided Acronycta, or 
other ganera, anil zudzhs is not further removed from the normal form of 
Cufocala in this respect, than is Aholibah, woich no one would think of 
putting in another genus. WVudilis comes the nearest of the Ce/oculae to 
Ophideres, and were the tibize not spinulated might be congeneric with it. 
After all, ornamentation is the chief reason for the genus. It was so with 
Hubner in the case of both elonympha and Parthenos. Were the mark- 
ings of the underwings like the ordinary Cafovalz, no one would think of 
generic separation. On the above grounds, I have retained all these 
groups, under the one genus Czfocalz. If any one does not consider my 
reasons sufficient, he has simply to take my subgenera as genera, and in 
place of Cv/o-ala make the following genera, with their 1espective species, 
Catocalirrhus, (Parthenos is a genus of the Rhopalocera), Catocala and 
Catabapta. 
HISTORY OF THE GENUS. 
The fathers of our science, Linnaeus, Cramer, Drury, Abbott & Smith, 
described the species known to them under the names .Vocfua or Phalena. 
In 1852 Schrank gave the name Ca/ocala, to these insects which have so 
striking a similarity to each other in their gayly colored underwings, 
Afterwards Hubner, after his fashion, divided these insects into as many 
sections as he could find superficial differences in coloration upon which 
to base them. Although these undescribed divisions have by many been 
recognized elsewhere in the Lefidopfera as genera, the most of his di- 
visions of Cafoca/a have never had any recognition whatever, as here he 
did not have the luck to hit on real differences, of which he knew noth- 
ing. Of the lot, Parthenos and Allofria alone lived, Guenee accepting 
them for zwdilis and elonympha. Since Guenee’s time these have been 
recognized, without investigation, till in 1882, Mr. John B, Smith, the 
highest authority in America on the subject, again merged Purfhenos and 
Allotria with Cafocala, on the ground that no structural differences warr- 
anted their separate existence. In 1883, Mr. Grote, as has been already 
said, on the bisis ofa suggestion of Dr. Speyer, created the genus 
Andrewsia for Messalina. But, as has been shown, this has no reason 
whatever for existing. 
LIMITATIONS OF THE SPECIES. 
From what has already been said of the inconstancy of the ornamen- 
tation and coloration of the wings it need not now be said, there is room 
