120 



A REVISION OF THE AUSTRALIAN NOCTUIDAE. 



B}- A. Jefferis Turner, M.D., F.E.S. 



' [Read June 10, 1920.] 



It would be difficult to over-estimat^e the debt which 

 we owe to Sir George HamjDson's great work, the 

 Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Phalaenae. By it the 

 study of the Noctuidae as a whole has been for the 

 first time placed on a scientific basis, for previous 

 attempts were only concerned with the fauna of restricted 

 areas. It has been a task of enormous magnitude; already 

 it has included some 8,500 species, and the large subfamilies 

 of the Noctuinae and Hypeninae have not yet been included. 

 The work must have been exceedingly difficult, for not only 

 are the species so numerous, but they are also in the great 

 majority very uniform in structure, so that generic and even 

 subfamily distinctions are hard to find, and still more difficult 

 to apply with consistency. While the general accuracy of Sir 

 Geo. Hampson's work is freely acknowledged, there cannot fail 

 to be some instances of errors of observation in a work of this 

 magnitude, some of them the inevitable consequence of poor- 

 ness of material. For instance, abdominal and thoracic crests 

 are easily liable to denudation. There must also be instances 

 in which differences of opinion as to the validity of characters 

 regarded as generic by the author may lead to divergence of 

 judgment. 



My attempt at a revision of the Australian species is, of 

 course, based on Hampson's work, which will always remain as 

 an indispensable foundation for any study of this family ; and I 

 shall therefore assume that the student has it before him, and 

 shall not consider it necessary to give references to it nor 

 to repeat the synonymy, localities, etc., that may be found 

 there. Where additional information is forthcoming it will 

 be stated. Where I differ from, him as to matters of fact or 

 judgment, this will be indicated by the classification I have 

 adopted, and where I think it advisable these differences will 

 be discussed. In some respects my task has been comparatively 

 easy, for I have only some 500 species to deal with, of most 

 of which I have been able to examine sufficient material, and 

 nearly all have been already diagnosed in Hampson's work. 

 On the other hand, an opportunity of examining exotic 

 material would no doubt have modified some of my conclu- 

 sions. I shall deal with the subfamilies to the end of the 



