2 
therefore, to a discussion of the results of the present investigation, a short 
historical sketch will be necessary in order that readers may better appreci- 
ate both the work that has already been accomplished, and the lines along 
which previous investigators have worked in their attempts to discover 
good characters for generic separation in so far, at least, as the Palaearctic 
and Nearctic faunas are concerned. 
Leaving out of consideration the works of some of the older authors 
of the early nineteenth century, such as Hiibner, Ochsenheimer, Stephens, 
etc., who, though they created valid Agrotid genera, had little conception 
of the actual limitations of this subfamily as recognized today, we find 
that Guenee in his Essai pour servir d la Classification des Noctuelides (1837, 
Ann. Ent. Soc. Fr. (1), VI, 347) first attempted to separate the group as a 
tribe under the name “Noctuelidi,” even mentioning that it had first been 
his intention to split off one section of this tribe under the name “Agrotidi.” 
In this work Guenee lays a good deal of stress in his subdivisions on larval 
characters and those drawn from the adult are very general and of little 
value from our modern standpoints. The tribe is divided into seven genera, 
chief of which are Agrotis, Noctua , and Triphaena, but Xylophasia is also 
included, proof that Guenee had as yet placed no value on the spining of 
the tibiae. In his Index Methodicus (1841, Ann. Ent. Soc. Fr. (1), X, 239) 
Xylophasia is removed and the number of genera increased to ten, as 
follows: Triphaena Ochs., Cerigo Steph., Segetia Steph., Rusina Steph., 
Noctua L ., Agrotis, Pachetra Gn., Heliophobus Bdv., Neuria Gn., and 
Charaeas Steph., most of the species being again included in the three before- 
mentioned genera which contain practically all the Agrotids as we now 
know them. 
In 1840, a year prior to the issuing of Guenee’s Index, Boisduval 
published his Genera et Index Methodicus, evidently following very closely 
Guenee’s earlier work. He designates his tribe as “Noctuides” and divides 
it into nine genera: Segetia, Cerigo, Triphaena, Opigena Bdv., Chersotis 
Bdv., Noctua, Spaelotis Bdv., Agrotis, and Heliophobus, three of these 
genera being new. 
Duponchel in 1844 in his Catalogue Methodique des Lepidopteres 
d’Europe uses the tribal name “Noctuelides” and divides it into twelve 
genera: Hiria Dup., Triphaena, Segetia, Noctua, Opigena, Actebia, Chersotis, 
Agrotis, Spaelotis, Charaeas, Heliophobus, and Rusina, the first named 
being a new monotypical genus erected for linogrisea Fabr. He follows 
very closely along the lines laid down by Boisduval and Guenee. With 
the exception of the last three genera all still belong to the Agrotinae. 
In 1848 Rambur, in some useful critical observations on the group 
(Ann. Ent. Soc. Fr. (2), VI, 65), raises it to family rank under the name 
“Agrotides” and calls attention to the spined tibia; as an excellent char- 
acter. He creates the new genus Cladocera (; preocc .) and is disposed to 
lump several of BoisduvaFs genera with Agrotis. 
In 1852 Guenee (Sp. Gen. des Lepid. V, 253) follows Rambur in giving 
the group family rank, but uses the term “Noctuidae.” He only recognizes 
five genera: Rusina, Agrotis, Hiria, Triphaena, and Noctua, but Agrotis is 
subdivided into thirteen and Noctua into nine groups; none of these groups 
is characterized, but in some instances available names are added in a 
subgeneric sense. 
