192 THE entomologist's RECCED. 



produced imagines. Some females of Diaphora }iu'n(Uca were taken, 

 and several batches of larvje have been obtained from their ova. 



The following day, the last of my holidays among the spring batter- 

 flies of 1915, produced a specimen of Ainjiadcs sylraniif:, an indication 

 that summer was now upon us. The only spring brood which I failed 

 to see at all was that of Parar;/e aegeria var. ei/erides for which 1 was 

 probably too late, as it certainly occurs in the district. 



"A Poser," Stainton. 



{Agrotis lunigera versus Agrotis triu-.) 



By Hy. J. TUENER, F.E.S. 



A casual perusal of the pages of magazines devoted to our favourite 

 study, which were issued in the prolific mid-Victorian period, often 

 proves of great interest and amusement, and may even start one on a 

 task, which has to the present time been strangely ignored or over- 

 looked. 



The luitrniiologist's Weekbi Intelligencer, vol. vi., issued on April 

 2nd, 1859, contains the above title to its opening page, and the article 

 begins, "Is Agrotis Innigera a northern variety of Agrotis truxV The 

 remainder of the article gives no opinion, nor any facts bearing on 

 one side or the other, but simply urges collectors to place the two 

 "side by side in the same cabinet." 



At once it was suggested to my mind, "Where do we stand now?" 

 The Entomologist Sgnonymic List, interleaved with its many MS. altera- 

 tions, additions, etc., was consulted. There I found Agrotis Innigera^ 

 St., without a synonym. Meyrick gave no reference to trux and 

 Barrett says, Lep. Brit. Isles., vol. iii., p. 318, " An opinion has been 

 hazarded that it [hmigera) is merely a local form of A. trux, a species 

 common in mountain districts of i'rance, Italy, and Spain ; but upon 

 what ground such a suggestion has been made, it is difficult to judge." 

 Tutt, Brit. Noct., vol. ii., p. 16, does not discuss the question but 

 quotes the suggestion of Guenee, Noctiielles, vol. i. (v.), p. 280, that 

 it may be recognised at some future time as a northern form of A. 

 trux. In South's Moths of the Brit. Isles, 1st ser., p. 205, is found the 

 definite statement, " Although its [Innigera?,) position in classification 

 is that of a local form of A. trux, Hiibn., this moth may here retain 

 the name that was given to it by Stephens in 1829." The italics are 

 ours. The author evidently has not a sufficiently strong opinion of 

 the validity of the " is " to make the necessary nomenclatorial change 

 which that statement must entail if it be based on actual fact. 



Hampson, in his comprehensive work issued by the Trustees of the 

 British Museum, Cat. Lep. Phalaenae in Brit. Mus., vol. iv., p. 245, 

 totally ignores the question, lumps all the suggested identities together 

 as simply synonyms of trux, viz., lenticulosa, terranea, hmigera, olivina, 

 and amasina, giving no indication as to whether they are known as 

 racial or aberrational in significance. He then sums all the ill-achieved 

 results of previous authors' work in one description of trux, and adds — 



ab. olirina. Forewing with slight greenish or violaceous tinge. 



ab. terranea. Fore-wing ochreous or pale rufous. 



ab. amasina. Fore-wing fuscous grey, darker in $ with median 

 shade blackish. 



