BRYOLEUCA. AGROTINAE. By Dr. A. Corti. 
microglossa. 
Irilinea. 
M. microglossa Rbr. (2 1) to be transposed from the classification in Vol. 3, p. 22, pi. 4 i and placed 
here. The species is widely distributed and also occurs in Syria. The almost unrecognisable illustration of 
this very variable species is replaced by a better illustration depicting both sexes. 
19e. Genus: Bryoleuca Hmps. 
Transposed from p. 200 where it was named as the 49th Genus and best classified here. The only known 
species: 
B. trilinea Beth.-Bak. (Vol. 3, p. 200, pi. 48 b) (2 1) strongly resembles a small pale B. divisa form 
and hitherto has only been found in Egypt, where it occurs in September and October. Biologically the spe¬ 
cies should be placed here, as the larvae, that are blue-grey with warts having sparse yellow hairs, live on 
walls in a small cocoon covered with sand and mortar and feed on lichen. 
Correction: 
p. 5 line 2 from top read instead of Acronyctinae : Acronictinae. 
p. 7 line 8 from bottom read instead of Acronycta : Acronicta. 
3. Subfamily: Agrotinae ( Euxoinae ). 
By Dr. A. Corti. 
In Vol. 3 of this work, pages 23 onwards, W. Warren followed when dealing with this subfamily 
the classification of Sir G. F. Hampson in Vol. 4 of the Lepidoptera Phalaenae of the British Museum. He made 
however some drastic alterations grouping for instance Hampson’s Genera Euxoa and Feltia in a single Genus 
Euxoa and also the Genera Agrotis, Epipsilia and Lycophotia in a single Genus Rhyacia. In accordance with 
the present state in the study of the Agrotinae neither the first classification by Hampson, nor the second by 
Warren can be retained. This especially on account of the importance now attached to the structure of the 
male genital organs which was only partly taken into consideration by Hampson, but not at all by Warren. 
Therefore quite a new subdivision has become necessary. The subfamily of the Agrotinae doubtless belongs 
to the most difficult and complicated of all the Noctuides and a great deal of research work will still be ne¬ 
cessary to introduce perfect clarity into the sometimes very confused state of affairs. The following classification 
of the Agrotinae therefore is made without any claim to absolute correctitude or completeness and it is 
merely an endeavour to make a record as far as is possible of the present position of this family. Consideration 
has been given to the question of variations and races in those sjzecies where they actually and constantly occur 
and these are enumerated as “v.”. On the other hand on principle the author wishes to resist introducing a list 
of the innumerable denominations for aberrations. He is firmly convinced that only immeasurable confusion 
will be produced by this absolutely unnecessary denomination craze and that it is the duty of every serious 
entomologist to oppose same. This without in any way deprecating the importance of the interesting study 
of aberrations in relationship to possibilities of variation in any given species. Most of the Agrotinae vary very 
considerably among themselves, in many species the degree of variability is so great that among a series of hundr¬ 
eds of specimens there are scarcely two that can be said to be exactly identical. Only at the special wish of 
the editor the aberrations that have been newly denominated since the publication of the main Volume, 
have been enumerated, partly because this was initiated in the main Volume and partly to give our read¬ 
ers an opportunity of knowing what is intended by these denominations. 
The <$<$ genital organs, the structure of which is a most valuable help in differentiating the Genera 
rather than the species, have been examined by other authors and myself covering the greater majority of 
all the hitherto known palaearctic Agrotinae. In such cases where it has been impossible to make an exami¬ 
nation or where it cannot be decided with certainty that a particular species actually belongs in a relative 
Genus, I have placed a question mark behind the name of the Genus, thus E. (?) carthalina Christ. 
The antennae of the Agrotinae are very varied in formation. Their construction, whilst being impor¬ 
tant for a systematic classification, is not always proof of a close relationship of particular species or the 
reverse. Often in the same Genus, they differ exceedingly, as of course also occurs in other Genera of the 
Noctuides (compare for instance Valeria oleagina and jaspidea). For purely practical reasons and because this 
work is essentially a supplement, I have retained Warren’s, respectively Hampson’s subdivision into Sections. 
I must however lay stress on the fact that this subdividing into sections is often very difficult with the 
very great diversity in the antennae and it should not be accepted as absolutely final. 
The subfamily of the Agrotinae is mainly to be recognised by the presence of 3 charateristics, each 
of which is of equal importance. The first is the naked eyes, the second the absence or stuntedness of vein 
5 of the hindwings, the third the jzresence of various spurs on the front, middle and hind tibiae, or on one 
