150 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
CIENTIFIC NOTES. 
Generic nomenclature and the Acronyctid.®. — I had not 
intended to return to this subject until I had finished the histories 
of the individual species, but as it has got under full discussion, it 
appears necessary that I should make some remarks. In the first 
place, it is hinted that I have annoyed Mr. Butler. I hope this is not 
so, and write to make every apology if such is the case, as nothing 
was further from my intention than to say anything that could be 
personally offensive or annoying to Mr. Butler. My only object was 
to point out that the conclusions he had formulated as to Acro?iycta 
were erroneous, being founded on superficial characters of one state 
only of the insects, and that, the one in which they are most variable 
and therefore the one least useful for furnishing generic characters, 
still less characters for division into families ; but if I have failed 
to do this without offending the author, I owe him an apology, 
even if tenderness on his side is as much to blame as roughness on 
mine. 
As to the names, my difficulty was that none of the many names 
that have been heaped up as subgenera in this genus admitted of 
the meanings I wanted. I have pointed out in the case of Cuspidia 
that it may be desirable to subdivide this section further, in which 
case TricEna^ say, would be available for psi and tridens^ Hyboma for 
strigosa^ Pochceara for alni^ and so on. Whereas, to adopt any of 
these names for Cuspidia would altogether obscure the main fact I 
wish to bring out, that all these belong to a division of the genus, 
all closely allied when compared with Viminia or Bisulcia. Similarly, 
with regard to Viminia^ I have placed Arsilonche venosa in this 
section, it is indeed a twin with rumicis much as psi is with t7'ide?is, 
in spite of the very different facies of the perfect insect. But also, 
though I have had no opportunity of fully studying them, I have 
little doubt that Simyra fiervosa and Clidia geographica belong to 
Vwiinia ; that is, they are more closely allied to auricoma, etc., 
than any of these Vhninia are to Cuspidia. Still, they differ so far 
from our British Viminia that their present generic names must be 
retained as subgenera of Viminia. I want names to have these 
values, and if anyone will show that any pre-existing names are 
available to do so, without confusion or violence to their present 
meanings, I will gladly agree to them. I am concerned that these 
relationships between the species should, in some way, be indicated, 
that they should be indicated by my names is a matter of indifference. 
— T. A. Chapman, Firbank, Hereford. 
The Male Genitalia. — Under the title of “The male Genitalia 
and the subdivisions of Agroiis,” Mr. A. R. Grote, A.M., Bremen, 
Germany, writes : — “ It is forty years ago since Lederer used the male 
genitalia to group the European species of Agrotis. According to the 
latest general work on the subject, the 127 European species of Agrotis 
fall into nine groups, characterised chiefly by changes in the form of 
the male genitalic appendages. The failure to correlate these 
European groups with the American subdivisions of Agrotis, prevents 
me from considering Professor Smith’s recent revision as complete. 
