The Hypenoid Moths and Allied Groups.

By A. Radcliffe Grote, A. M.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, December 6, 1895.)

The following paper may be considered as a conclusion to that published by this Society in 1883 upon the Noctuæ of North America. As far as the literature is accessible and material allows, I have considered the European and North American forms, whose relationship is so intimate that stable results can never be obtained from their separate study.

THE AGROTID MOTHS.

Since my paper above alluded to, this group has been catalogued in 1890, 1891, 1893 and 1895. In the Washington catalogue (No. 44), the general sequence of the entire family group is based upon my New York list of 1882; the families Thyatiridæ, Noctuidæ and Brephidæ, as limited by me in 1883, being used. In 1895, I separated the Apatelidæ as a distinct family, based on larval characters, and proposed to designate the main group of the owlet moths by the name Agrotidæ, the term Noctua being preoccupied in the birds. The Thyatiride are shown by Dyar to be structurally allied to the Platypterygidæ and Geometridæ, from larval characters, and with this I am agreed. They are therefore removed from this series which now stands: Apatelidæ, Agrotidæ, Brephide. In my efforts to clear the nomenclature and apply the oldest terms I have endeavored to bring these into conformity with the system employed in general zoology. In my Systema, August 15, 1895, I have shown that the terms "Macro" and "Micro" apply to certain characteristics, designated by Speyer and Chapman, which we can trace through long series; even Papilio showing "Micro" characteristics, as in the pupal waist. However useful and necessary a study of these characters is in phylogeny, they should be rejected from the nomenclature of taxonomical groups. The terms are generally so little understood that they have been applied quite recently as an index to relative size. I replace the term Microlepidoptera, in a taxonomical sense, by that of Tineides for the superfamily.

There remains here for me to note certain changes in the Agrotinæ since my last list. The genus Harrisimemna Grote turns out, as I expected, to belong to the Apatelidæ, and should be there referred. The genus Raphia, from Dyar's observation on the larva, must be removed from the Apatelidæ to the Hadenini. It seems to be allied to the European Episema, but I have not seen the Spanish species of Raphia, nor compared the American forms with the European genera in question. The genera Calocampa and Lithomia (Lithomoia) should be referred to the tribe Calocampini Grote, 1890; while the genus Lithophane (= Xylina

1895.]

[Grote.

of authors, not Xylena of Hübner, Ochsenheimer, Treitschke) should be left with the Orthosiini. The species referred by me to Oligia Hübner should be placed under Monodes Guen., with the type nucicolor (nuci colora). The species congeneric with the European Oligia strigilis, of which we have undoubtedly several in North America, remain to be separated from the species listed under Helioscota. Miana of Stephens is considered synonymous with Oligia, and as having the same type. For the genus Pyrophila, I propose the tribal term Pyrophilini. The genus Amphipyra of Ochsenheimer, iv, 70, 1816, contains: tragopoginis, tetra, livida, cinnamomea, pyramidea, perflua (pyramidina), spectrum. The first six species are taken by Pyrophila Hübner, 1806 (1811), and thus spectrum becomes the type. This conclusion can only be affected by a rejection of Pyrophila, for which I know of no sufficient reason. It is about time that subjective opinions, preferences, were abated in the study of the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera. The genus Plusia, as given by Ochsenheimer, iv, 89, 1816, contains deaurata and eighteen other species, including Hübner's type, chrysitis. This author cites Hübner, and those who refuse to follow this example are accessory to the alienation of Hübner's literary property. Ochsenheimer's genus contains incongruous material. I attempt to sort the species of Plusia of authors as follows, having mainly European material to examine: Plusia Hübn., type chrysitis, also zosimi, chryson, area, æreoides (aroides Sm. in error), balluca, bractea, metallica, æmula, deaurata. Panchrysia Hübn., with the type deaurata, is probably not different. Perhaps different, but slightly as a group, is Chrysaspidia Hübn., 1818, with the type festuca, also putnami, contexta, venusta (striatella). Agrapha Hübn., unless the type is glauca, unknown to me, is synonymous with Plusia. Then comes Autographa Hübn., 1818, with the type gamma, also precationis, rogationis (dyaus), pseudogamma, iota, circumflexa, ou, fratella, mappa, gutta, V-argenteum, accentifera. Euchalcia Hübn., type illustris, also modesta, uralensis, consona, cheiranthi. A decidedly different type is Polychrisia Hübn., with the type moneta; probably here belong conchis and C-aureum. The American species remain, as I have said, to be sorted over. I indicate only Chrysanympha Grt., with the type, P. formosa Grt. The genus Xanthia of Ochsenheimer, iv, 82, 1816, includes luteago and sixteen other, often dissonant, species. This author cites Hübner, and would apparently include his type under cerago. Under Cosmia, id. 84, Ochsenheimer includes fulvago, W. V., Hübn, which is paleacea as stated, also gilvago, abluta, trapezina, diffinis, affinis, pyralina. To this genus Ochsenheimer also cites Hübner, and includes his type affinis. It is evident that the species of Xanthia have been greatly confused; possibly the similar names, relating to some shade of yellow in these autumn moths, together with the perfunctory affix, has assisted to prevent identification. Not without reason have I protested, following Guenée, against duplication in specific titles in this group; I just discover that my proposal at one time to take nictitans as the type of Apamea, had its origin in a mistake as to the species cited by

=

Ochsenheimer by this name under Apamea, which is not our common Gortyna nictitans, but a species of Oligia. Although Ochsenheimer identifies under Cosmia, the fulvago of Hübner, with paleacea, there is no necessity here for assuming that the fulvago of the Tentamen is really this latter species. In the interest of the synonymy I assume the fulvago of the Tentamen to refer to the fulvago of Linné, the cerago of Fabricius, which is given by name as the type of Xanthia.

Tribe Scolecocampini Grote, 1890. To this group, Mr. J. B. Smith refers the genus Pseudorgyia Harvey, with its type, versuta. There can be no objection to this reference, and the genus may follow the genus Eucalyptera, on page 74, of my list of 1895. Apparently allied to Cilla and Amolita, the following may find there place in the same tribe :

Oxycilla, n. g. Tibiæ not spinulated; anterior tibiæ unarmed; front smooth; palpi exceeding the head by about its own length, flattened, obliquely ascending. The venation could not be examined; the primaries are wide, not narrow as in Doryodes, the accessory cell is present.

Oxycilla tripla Grt. Pale straw-colored, dusted with dark scales on the outer or terminal half of primaries in the female. A medium and an outer, wavy, very faint brown line; the first of these is oblique beyond middle of cell, the outer line parallel beyond end of cell, about one-third the distance to the margin. Another line half way between this and the margin in female only, of ground color; in male with an inward faint shaded brownish border. Fringe the darkest part of the wing, preceded by faint narrow terminal brown venular dashes. Secondaries shaded with brownish especially outwardly. Types in coll. Neumægen, under the name Rivula tripla Grote. My studies on the species were interrupted by the state of my health, and I left it with the name attached to the specimens under which it is quoted by Mr. J. B. Smith, in the Catalogue of 1893. This and the following were among the Arizona material in the collection, and their relation to Rivula, which is also referred here by Mr. Smith, is not ascertained.

Zelicodes linearis Grote (Litognatha). The female type was referred by me doubtfully to the Deltoid genus and Mr. J. B. Smith rejects it from the group. The characters of Zelicodes agree with Oxycilla, till we come to the palpi. These are shorter, scarcely compressed, the terminal joint minute. I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Harrison G. Dyar for notes on the species which enable me to publish them. The relationship of these small, frail, pale colored forms, which have a superficial resemblance to the Pyralidæ, and Hypeninæ, cannot be fully made out until material is accumulated for dissection. I have described the structure and neuration of our Eastern Cilla distema quite fully, as also Amolita (N. Am. Ento., i, 99, 100, 1880). It seems to me that we can hardly include Rivula with this type. According to Mr. J. B. Smith it "lacks the accessory cell and vein 10 of the primaries arises from the subcostal as in some of the Deltoid genera." The value of the characters of vein 5 of the secondaries has been impeached by Mr. Smith when I used

1895.]

[Grote.

it in correcting his reference of Cerathosia to the Arctiidæ, so it need not detain us here. The hind wings of Rivula agree, according to Smith, with the "Trifida." Mr. Tutt, in his Stray Notes on the Noctuidæ, calls the reference of Herrick Schaeffer of Rivula "inexplicable," so it may be dismissed as an example of the fact that neurational characters should not be too literally interpreted. But Dr. Chapman writes that Rivula is not a Deltoid, and as positively not belonging to the Pseudoipsida or Nycteolidæ, from which I may say the shape of the wings decidedly removes it. Since I am not willing to place it in the same tribe with Cilla, from the details of neuration, it may be separately placed in the new tribe, Rivulini m. The relationship of Oxycilla and Cilia to Rivula must be left for future study. I publish the names here as they have been cited in catalogues. All such unpublished names of mine are now exhausted.

In a pamphlet, kindly sent me by Mr. William Schaus, occurs the mention of a genus "Alibama," which I do not recognize and cannot trace. If it has the same derivation as Alabama Grt., 1895, and is different, then the latter may be called Eualabama. The species Orthosia purpurea, No. 779, is wrongly written perpura. If crispa of Harvey is a variety of this, then it is most certainly worthy of the varietal name. I really do not know what varietal names are for, if they are not to be employed as designating forms so distinct in appearance as crispa, specialis and gularis. To lump these under a common title is to ignore a category of facts which our nomenclature was invented to designate. The black, suffused specimens of my Andropolia olorina from California in the Hy. Edwards collection, now in charge of Mr. Beutenmüller in the American Museum, Central Park, should bear the label var. australia Grt.

On page 69 of the Catalogue, Mr. Smith says: "In the British Museum, Mr. Butler has placed a lightly marked specimen of turris Grt., with typical saucia, and has published them as identical." There are several other criticisms of Mr. Butler's determinations to a similar effect, but I have never seen Mr. Butler's papers, and since Mr. Smith has apparently corrected these mistakes, so far as the North American species are concerned, they need not be entered upon here. There is only one of these instances in which it is possible Mr. Butler is correct, the identity of our North American Agrotis dolis with Agrotis birivia Hb., from the Alps. I have not compared specimens and the figures of the latter do not recall to me the former. Mr. Smith seems to regard birivia as the type of Chera, and as this term may have been misapplied by Mr. Butler, I give the genus from the Verzeichniss :

CHERA.

1818 (1816-1822). Hübner, Verzeichniss, 211. Serratilinea (this first species has hairy eyes and is an aberrant Mamestra from the Alps and Siberia), fugax (lucernea), renigera (these three names apply to distinct species of Agrotis from the Alps, Austria, Russia and Hungary, all un

nown to me, and whether they belong to the subgenus Carneades, or whether Chera has been restricted to any one of these I cannot say), templi (this latter is the type of Dasypolia Guen.). There is no mention of birivia under Chera.

RHYACIA.

1818 (1816-1822). Hübner, Verzeichniss, 210. Lucipeta birivia. This term has priority over Chera, if the latter is to be restricted to the contents which are Agrotis sp. It seems, on the surface, that Mr. Butler's use of Chera should be changed to Rhyacia, but whether these five species of Agrotis belong to the same subgenus is not certain. In no event can birivia be the type of Chera. I make no reference of type to either of these names, leaving the matter to those who have the material and the literature. I have not examined these gray Alpine species to see if they share the clypeal tubercle of Carneades. As stated by me, there are primarily three structural types in Agrotis. 1. Front smooth, fore tibiæ unarmed. 2. Front smooth, all the tibiæ armed. 3. Front tuberculate, all the tibiæ armed (Carneades). I have never doubted, when the clypeus was properly examined, that species belonging to my genus Carneades would be found in Europe, but I am the first to detect the character and to insist upon a comparison of all the forms to establish these divisions. There are so many names in Hübner that Carneades can hardly be preserved, it would be almost a miracle. But if it falls I wish to have it distinctly understood that I based my genus upon absolute character, and that Mr. Smith's statement that it was founded in "ignorance" is an incorrect assertion. I distinctly oppose the use of modifications of the genitalia as being of generic importance (of themselves sufficient to support generic titles) in the Agrotidæ for reasons already fully given elsewhere.

Finally, with regard to Fruva obsoleta, I have recorded it as a variety. It is very distinct from fasciatella, being perfectly plain, and Mr. Smith's remarks upon it show that he has made but a superficial examination of my types, Catalogue, 302. On the contrary, I found structural differences between the two in Can. Ent., and it seems that we should consider it as a distinct species, unless these observations of mine are properly contradicted. In any case it is an easily recognized form and should have a distinct name.

THE CATOCALINE MOTHS.

As stated by me in 1883 there are, roughly speaking, two distinct types of ornamentation in the geometriform Agrotidæ, or Catocalinæ. In the first, the lines of the primaries are not distinctly continuous over the secondaries, which are thus more or less distinctively marked, as in Euclidia and Catocala; in the Ascalaphini the hind wings have the general color, but the lines of fore wings are usually wanting, this feature fails in Pleonectyptera pyralis an aberrant form which has been referred to the Her