Retrospective Criticism, 177 



Artaxerxes : Are these three distinct, as species ; or the same, 

 arising from some local or other cause? — Plate 4. figs. 2, 3, 

 and 4. meliloti, trifolii, and loti: are these distinct? Ditto, 

 figs. 5. and 6. filipendulae and hippocrepidis : or only slight 

 varieties ? Fig. 26. chrysidiformis : what is the authority as 

 British? Fig. 31. philonthiformis: Is it distinct from 30. 

 2chneumonif6rmis ; and where, when, and by whom was it 

 taken, and in whose cabinet is it ? — Mr. Curtis, in his Guide 

 gen. 790. 9., has given Mghvia stomoxyformis of Stephens as 

 the ? of his mutillaeformis, for which he has been ridiculed; 

 Mr. Stephens having subsequently said that the stomoxyf(5rmis 

 which he has figured is a " ^ , with ciliated ant ennce^* \ In mif 

 copy of Mr. Stephens's work, the figure of stomoxyformis 

 (plate 11. fig. 3.) appears to be a female, and has not ciliated 

 antennae; though culiciformis (plate 10. fig. 3.) is a ^ , with 

 " ciliated antennce ; '* but Mr. Curtis does not refer to that. 

 It does not appear that either Mr. Stephens or Mr. Wood 

 has figured the true Sesia stomoxyformis of Hiib. ; of which 

 this (Jig, 33.) is a copy. It has two . 



orange lines on the thorax ; a band '^a^^Vw/V^rtia 

 and four spots of the same colour on ^^^^^^^^^^^' 

 the abdomen ; which agrees with Ste- ^^^^^^^^^ 

 phens's Latin description, as well it ffi^ 



may, his being copied verbatim from 33 B 



Ochsenheimer, with the omission of " 



the word in parenthesis ; viz. " Alis (hyalinis) anticarum mar- 

 ginibus fasciaque nigris; thoracis litieis duabus abdominis 

 barbati cingulo punctisque later alihus fidvis ; palpis omnino 

 nigris." But Mr. Stephens, in his English description, says, 

 " thorax glossy, immaculate ; abdomen with fourth segment 

 fulvous, orange, interrupted by a dusky black line beneath," 

 &c. Whether this (Mr. Stephens's) is a good species, I will 

 not pretend to say, as I have not had an opportunity o^ seeing 

 a specimen. 



Catocdla elocdta, — Mr. Stephens lias remarked that " this 

 fine insect presents a conspicuous instance of the baneful 

 practice of mixing foreign and indigenous productions toge- 

 ther ; particularly when undistinguished by any memorandum 

 or label ; as, in consequence of an unticketed specimen having 

 been detected in the collection of the late Mr. Blunt, this spe- 

 cies has not only been selected and figured as a British ex- 

 ample of the genus Catocala, but the error has also been 

 subsequently copied into Loudon's Magazine [I. 272. fig. 

 136.]; whereas the specimen in question, which has thus 

 improperly been introduced into our Fauna, was obtained 



Vol. y 11. — No. 38. N 



