I^OTES. 



'* 300." 



Mote 1 (p. 1). — '^Auetia AKaiiXACEA. Aus Bahia. Vom Herm Sommer abeelaasen. 

 Eiiie Noctua genuina undHeliophila lineata. Sie ist der A. Fitellina* sehr ShiQich, hat 

 »ber in nichts eine Gleichheit rait ihr und auf den Schwingen einen weiBsen Punct. 

 Ibre Ftirbildang 399, 400. stellt ein mdnnUches Muster vor. 



'' *Hubu., Noc, 379. ViteUina." 



This may be translated : " From Babia. Left by Mr. Sommer. A Noctua genuina and 

 Heliophila lineata. It is very similar to A. ViteUina, but is in nothing identical with 

 it, and has a white dot on the wings. Figs. 399 and 400 represent the male." 



Note 2 (p. 1). — Without entering into any general discussion, which would be out 

 of place here, as to whether Hiibnei's names should be adopted or not — a question 

 which has always divided entomologists — but following those who, taking the more 

 conservative view, accept his species when his descriptions and figures leave no ques- 

 tion as to what is intended, the above purported description, in connection with the 

 figures, would have to be rejected even from this standpoint. In point of fact tbey 

 leave every doubt as to the species intended, and give us no absolute certainty. The 

 only descriptiv e part is that referring to the white dot, and tbis is conspicuously and 

 well represented on the figure referred to ; but it is this very character which makes 

 it morally certain that some other species than xylina Say was intended ; for while 

 typical specimens of xylina invariably have the three white minute dots referred to 

 on page 9 of this work, the conspicuous discal or reniform spot on primaries is almost 

 invariably oval and dark, with two cinereous pupils, which are often dilated so as to 

 represent a large cinereous spot, with a dark center and a dark border. Of the many 

 hundreds, and we may say thousands, of specimens which we have examined, not one 

 has had the distinct white spot described and figured by Hiibner. The figures in 

 other respects bear out this conclusion ; for while in the different copies of the Zu- 

 trage the coloring will vary according to the colorist, and according as the colors have 

 changed with age — two facts which in themselves should be sufficient to discard names 

 founded on mere figures — yet in the three copies which we have examined the figures 

 represent a smaller, feebler-bodied species, lacking in the characteristic olivaceous 

 hues, and much more roseate superiorly and more highly colored with yellow aud 

 roseate on the under side. The under surfaces of xylina are of tolerably uniform pale 

 gray, with a faint ochreous tinge, and in no specimen of xylina do we find the sharp 

 black line on the under side of the hind border of the secondaries characteristic of 

 Hiibner's figure. 



From these facts it will be seen that nothing can be absolutely settled from 

 Hiibner's description and figures, and so much has this been felt by previous authors 

 that they have not been able to identify Hiibner's argillacea. Thus Guenee, who 

 had evidently better material to judge from than any previous, or for that matter sub- 

 sequent, author whom we can call to mind, questioned whether his grandipuncta 

 {=xylina) could be referred to argillacea, for the reason that this last is more yellow, 

 more distinctly marked, with the reniform concolorous, marked with a very distinct 

 white dot, and quite distinct on the under surface. Even Mr. Grote, notwithstanding 

 the assurance with which he identifies argillacea in the paper before the Association in 

 the fall of 1874, expressed his uncertainty in his first published opinion on the subject 

 earUer in the year. (Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. i, p. 

 170, 1874.) 



[95] 



