6 
(5) Palpi upturned to vertex, wings large, broad with even outer margin, tongue 
weak Pteroscia 
Palpi upturned to middle of front or porreet 6 
(6) Vestiture deeply overlaid with plain or forked hair 7 
Vestiture flattened or mixed 8 
(7) Tongue weak, shorter than thorax; wings broad and thin with even outer 
margin, resembling Pteroscia; metatarsi with three rows of spinules. Choephora 
Tongue normal, wings smaller and heavy, metatarsi often with four rows of 
spinules Packnobia 
(8) Spinulafion of fore tibise strong, or if weak and concealed in the vestiture (baja) 
with strongly flattened body Noctua 
Spinulation concealed in vestiture, body rather slender and cylindrical, wings 
broad with arched costa; largely arctic Eurois 
(group Aplectoides) 
(9) Abdomen strongly tufted, eyes more or less lashed 10 
Abdomen untufted 11 
(10) Thorax with fine, feathery, spatulate vestiture, wings normal, our species light 
grey Anytus 
Vestiture of flattened hair, wings more lanceolate, our species black Fishia 
(11) Spines of tarsus regular, eyes not lashed Eurois 
Eyes distinctly lashed 12 
(12) Vestiture mixed, largely spatulate Apharetra 
Vestiture of rough hairs, spinules of tarsus distinctly in four well-spaced rows, 
but all four row's are ventral Ufeus 
On pages 24-27 Forbes discusses subordinate groupings for his genera 
Euxoa, Feltia , Noctua, Pachnobia, and Eurois, in some instances indicating 
the subgeneric name to be used. He states, “secondary sexual characters 
are not really satisfactory for general use and in this, the Agrotid group, 
their use would separate very closely related species, so I have gone back 
to Grote’s point of view and combined a number of Smith’s genera.” The 
whole work shows a very careful study of structural characters (excepting 
genitalia), but its permanent value is greatly limited, due to the fact that 
no attempt has been made to definitely fix the genotypes of the various 
genera employed according to the rules of the International Committee 
on Zoological Nomenclature. In consequence, Forbes’ terms, just as is 
the case with those of Hampson and of Smith, are frequently misapplied. 
Warren in Seitz, Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde, vol. Ill, largely follows 
Hampson in his classification of the Palaearctic Agrotids; he, however, 
employs the subfamily term Euxoinae and lumps all the species placed 
by Hampson in the genera Agrotis, Epipsilia and Lycophotia in the one 
genus Rhyacia Hbn,, forming a very unwieldy mass of species, many of 
which show no close relationship, as has been admirably pointed out by 
Corti in his recent papers on Agrotids in various continental European 
journals; Warren creates the new genera Amphitrota (type unicolor Wlk.) 
and PeHssandria (type argillacea Alph.). 
Draudt in the Nearctic portion of the same work (vol. VII) follows 
Hampson and the Barnes and McDunnough 1917 Check List, with the 
exception that Lampra Hbn. is used in place of Rhynchagrotis Sm., in 
accordance with Benjamin’s revision of this group (1921, Bull. S. Calif. 
Acad. Sci. XX, 73). 
TYPES OF AGROTID GENERA 
The above very brief and frequently rather inadequate review will at 
least serve to emphasize the fact that no stable system of generic nomen- 
clature is possible in the Agrotinae until a definite fixation of generic types, 
