Grote.) 164 [June 16, 
gist.’’ The perfect insects are fond of flowers and one (Oirrhophanus) 
appears to be an internal feeder in stems or capsules as a larva. 
20. Plusiine m. The head is more prominent, the third palpal article 
longer, and the body tufted on the dorsal line. These tufts are prominent 
in Plusia, and there is an exaggerated tuft, fan-shaped, on the abdomen in 
Behrensia, a genus which is nearest to Abrostola. Diastema Tigris has 
been sent to Mr. Hy. Edwards from Florida, and seems generically dis- 
tinct from Zelerilla; I have not been able to examine it carefully. The 
species of Plusia hover over flowers in the evening like Sphingidw ; a few 
species, Ni, Precationis, Dydus, Verruca, I have found active in the day- 
time, as are several species in the next group. Our species are both numer- 
ous and beautiful, but a little darker and richer-colored, less metallic per- 
haps, than the European. Most interesting are two forms, Z’hyatiroides and 
Formosa, which are mimetic of the genera Thyatira and Leptina respec- 
tively ; a curious circumstance when we reflect that Tiyatira was placed 
near Plusia by certain early authorities. 
21. Heliothine m. The abdomen is conical, untufted, the vestiture 
hairy, the head usually retracted, the antenne simple, ocelli present, eyes 
naked or hairy, often narrowed or constricted, the tibia armed, the ante- 
rior tibix shortened. The colors are bright and pretty, and the species 
frequent flowers; in the chosing blossoms of Q?nothera Biennis, as de- 
scribed by Prof. Kellicott, who has watched the species in all stages, the 
moth of Rhodophora Florida conceals itself, flower and moth being of the 
same colors. My arrangement of the genera commences with the nine 
typical forms JZ/eliothis and the genus Melicliptria, which I have sepa- 
rated from Heliothis, and closes with the usual paler, white genera which 
show an approach to the following Acontians. As I have shown, [ recog- 
nized, in 1874, the probable large extent of my genus Lygranthacia. I 
kept, however, certain forms distinct upon modifications of tibial struc- 
ture, leaving the responsibility of certain genera with Guenée. But any 
student with the microscope in hand, and my remarks before him, could 
have come to the conclusion now reached by Mr. Smith, with a show of 
originality which is wanting in fact. Mr. Smith unites my species of 7’rico- 
pis, Huleucyptera and Schinia with Lygranthecia, for which genus he keeps 
the term Schinia, a name which I alone had ‘‘resurrected’’ for the species 
described by Hubner, thus destroying my connection with the genus 
which is essentially my work. 'These do, in fact, present but slight modi - 
fication of tibial structure, the changeable nature of which is shown by an 
excellent plate furnished by Mr. Smith, who, from a comparison of all ac- 
cessible types, arrives at conclusions which, as a rule, [ feel bound and 
glad to accept. But I believe he goes too far in sinking Zricopis and 
making Huleucyptera synonymous. I also believe that Tertia, which I had 
described under Zamila (under a mistaken view of the characters of that 
genus which Mr. Smith now corrects), will prove, with Cupes, generically 
distinct. I refer to some points in the generic descriptions given in this 
| 
| 
