SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 
13 
City of London Society’s Meeting, October i6th, 1890, on “ The genus 
Tceniocampa'^ (Record i., p. 216), is the reason for Dr. Chapman 
supposing that I wish to replace leucographa and rubricosa in 
Tcenioca 77 ipa ; — “ The species leucographa and rubricosa, although very 
closely allied to each other, are very dissimilar to hyperborea (alpina), 
which seems to be an aberrant member of the Agrotidce^ and there 
appears no reason whatever for uniting these species in the genus 
PacJi 7 iobiaP Dr. Chapman assumes that by this I mean replace 
leucographa and rubricosa in Tce 7 iioca 77 ipap and I suppose leave alpma 
in Pachnobia. What I stated at the meeting (the report is only the 
barest summary of my remarks) was — refer alpma to Agrotis or 
thereabouts, but leave leucographa and rubricosa (under PachTiobia or 
any other name) generically distinct from alpma. I certainly did not 
suggest replacing these species in T(E 7 iioca 77 ipa and practically agree 
with Dr. Chapman’s remarks. The literature of the genus Paclmobia 
seems to be as follows: — Guenee created Pachnobia for the species 
car 7 iea^ hyperborea., car 7 iicap‘ and glacialis’^- (Nociuelites, v., pp. 342, 343), 
Dr. Staudinger moved hyperborea with carnica and glacialis to Agrotis 
(Catalog p. 81); he also removed leucographa and rubricosa from 
Tce 7 iioca 77 ipa into Pachnobia, Gn., with carnea (Catalog 114). Our list- 
makers, leave hype 7 porea in Paclmobia (following Guenee) and then add 
leucographa and rubricosa (following Staudinger), and so mix the matter 
completely. I can only imagine that our list-makers in their wisdom 
have supposed that carnea = carnica (another synonym of hyperborea), 
and have thus become hopelessly muddled. Undoubtedly car 7 iea has 
prior claim to Pachnobia, and as leucographa and rubricosa go with 
carnea they will retain Pachnobia, but what is alpma to do ? Of course, 
if we only had our 3 (so-called) Pach 7 iobice to account for, alpina would 
by priority take that generic name but carnea alters matters entirely, 
and I take it that Dr. Chapman has used (in his remarks above) the 
genus Pachnobia quite correctly, in so far as he includes leucographa 
and rubricosa. But we shall have to remove alpina ; probably, it 
appears, make a new genus for it. For the remainder Dr. Chapman’s 
careful differentiation is quite new matter for consideration. In the 
Canadia 7 i Ento 7 nologist, March 1891, p. 46, Mr. Grote writes: — “I 
referred to my Check List (1875) Pachnobia to Agrotis, but in deference 
to European writers have lately left it near Tcenioca 7 npar I am sorry I 
don’t know how Grote uses Pachnobia. Can any reader tell me ? — 
J. W. Tutt, Westcombe Hill. April 2nd, 1891, 
The Value of the Genitalia in determining Species. — The 
following note by Mr. W. H. Edv/ards, Coalburgh, West Va. U.S.A., 
taken from the Canadian Pnto 77 iologist, xxm., p. 55, appears so certain 
to interest British entomologists that I have no hesitation in reproducing 
it for their edification. It is as follows : — Are the genitalia valuable in 
. determining species ? I doubt it much. We do not need to examine 
them to prove that two species plainly distinct in the inmgo, are really 
so as Papilio turnus and phile 7 ior. It is when the imagoes are puzzling 
that help from any quarter would be welcomed, as in the case of 
Grapta c-albu 77 i, G. C 077 mia, G. satyrus, G. fau 7 tus. Will they help us 
^ I took the genus Taniocainpa in its most comprehensive form, as dealt with in 
our British text-books. 
2 Carnica and glacialis are vars. of hyperborea. 
