June, 1898.] 
Smith : North American Noctuid^e. 
99 
tions have come from the northern portion of our country and empha¬ 
size the character of the genus as one of either high altitude or high lati¬ 
tude. It is quite probable that a few species yet remain to be discovere 1 
and these will in all likelihood be rather close allies to something already 
described. 
The receipt of material from Manitoba and Calgary has, within the 
past few years, added considerable to our knowledge of the species of 
this genus and a very interesting example of close relationship is re¬ 
corded here. 
The additions above referred to have also enabled us to gain a bet¬ 
ter idea of the specific standing of some of our species and some of these 
facts are here recorded. 
Noctua smithii Snellen . 
Tijdschr. voor Entomologie, XXXIX, 157. 
baja JSmith. 
Bulletin 44, U. S. Nat. Mus. 78. 
All authors who had written on the subject up to the date of Snellen’s 
paper have assumed the identity of the European and North American 
examples labelled baja. Speyer, Zeller, Moeschler and Grote have all 
examined specimens from both countries and considered them as repre¬ 
sentatives of one species only. In the Revision above cited I pointed 
out that both Lederer and Speyer refer to the anterior tibiae as unarmed, 
while in all the specimens seen by me they were spinose. Unfortunately 
I had no European examples for comparison, hence could only suggest 
the question: “ whether we have not here as in the case of triangulum 
and normaniana, distinct species.” Snellen has carefully compared 
specimens from both countries and finds the European form with con¬ 
stantly unarmed fore tibiae. He therefore names the American form as 
above, while the structural difference thus brought out, assigns baja ta 
my genus Rhynchagrotis. It is certainly remarkable that so well marked 
a structural difference should separate species superficially so much 
alike. 
Snellen prefers to separate the European species on a somewhat dif¬ 
ferent basis from that proposed by me, and does not accept my genera 
for their comparatively small number of forms. It must remain for the 
student with collections from all countries for comparison, to decide 
as to the advisability of subdivision and to select the basis for it. 
It is also pointed out that Carneades Grt., is long since preoccupied 
by Bates, in Coleoptera. If the rule is to be strictly enforced, Mr. 
Grote’s term must give way, probably to Chera Hubner. 
