No. 6.] GROTE ON NORTH AMERICAN AGROTIS. 151 



lu different papers, Mr. 11. K. Morrison has described many species 

 of tbe genus. In one of his earliest communications, Proc. Bost. Soc. 

 N. H., J). 102, Dec, 1874, Mr. Morrison says: "I give below a prelimi- 

 nary list, with short descriptions of some new species of Agrotis, wliich 

 will be fully illustrated and compared with allied forms in my forthcom- 

 ing pai)er on that genus." The promise has not been fulfilled, and, from 

 the fact that Mr. Morrison has disposed of several of his types, perhaps 

 it cannot be. The species briefly characterized and named are twentj'- 

 two in number. It is safe to say that the species could not be recognized 

 from these '' short descriptions ". The species with which they are com- 

 pared are often not the species nearest to the new form, as, for instance, 

 sigmoides, with which the new species saxigena and claviformis are said 

 to be allied. ISTow, sigmoides is not at all nearly related to these forms; 

 M. Guenee would place them in distinct genera; nor are they similar in 

 appearance. Saxigena is, I believe, certainly the same as the Labrador 

 species imperita of Hiibner; claviformis is more nearly related to Pach- 

 nohia carnea than to sigmoides, which latter belongs to the genus Noctua, 

 according to Guenee. Again, plagigera is said to be allied to 4:-dentata, 

 but Mr. Morrison's type belongs to a species more nearly related to mes- 

 soria than to 4:-dentata. The question as to whether these descriptions 

 are valid or not is simplified by the fact that Mr. Morrison has redescribed 

 a number of them, so that they can be recognized, while in three instances 

 {bochus, simplicius, and redimacula) he has altered and modified the orig- 

 inal names. It would seem to be right that these species should only 

 date from their full description, and that the names not again mentioned 

 should be dropped from the lists. It is not necessary here to go over 

 the argument by reprinting any of these " short descriptions ". Xo stu- 

 dent who knows the difftculty of the grouj) can hesitate in throwing 

 aside these descriptions as worthless. At least half of 1 hem would cover 

 a dozen or more species besides the one intended. Of these twenty-two 

 I have myself described two, intrita and rufipectus, under Mr. Morrison's 

 names. Of the twenty remaining, Mr. Morrison has described elsewhere 

 seven, viz, simplaria, claviformis, brocha, redimicula, plagigera, Rileyana, 

 gladiaria; of the thirteen left, seven must go in as synonyms ; saxigena I be- 

 lieve to be the same as imperita; permunda, Mr. Morrison wi'ote me, was 

 a redesGT\\)tion of fumalis und perpura of JEuroides; scropulana, from the 

 alirine region of Mount Washington, is, I believe, tne same as carnea, 

 from Labrador, and opipara, from the same locality, the same as islandica; 

 while I regard manifestolahes as the male of Catherina (I have been in 

 error in considering my type of Catherina a male) ; and uni macula being 

 preoccupied in the genus, must give way to haruspica for the Xorth 

 American species whicU represents the Eiu-opean augur. There remain, 

 then, six names, of which two, decolor and exscrtisiigma, have found their 

 way into collections. As to decolor, Mr. ]\Iorrison returned me a form, 

 which I had sent him for description, as the "typical form of decolor'^; 

 but my campcstris has also been distributed by him as ^^ decolor ^\ and is 



