A " POSER," STAINTON. 197 



pure white, shaded slightly to the outer margin. There is no lighter 

 .area at the base of the forewing's inner margin as in some of the 

 figures I have seen and quoted. Fig. G is a very similar figure as 

 regards the ground colour, but the claviform is expressed and con- 

 spicuously dark, while the orbicular has to be looked closely for. 

 There is no transverse band of brown tint, but the outer marginal 

 fringes are brown or dull orange, perhaps. The hindwings are much 

 darker marginally than in fig. 4. Fig. 5 is a brown form, the basal 

 half being much darker, as is also a narrow irregular area inside the 

 fringe. The fringe itself conforms to the lighter ground colour. The 

 claviform is entirely absent, the orbicular represented by a dot, and 

 the reniform is expressed fairly well. The hindwings are as in fig. 6. 

 No varietal names are attached. None of these figures are at all 

 comparable to our lioihji'ra. 



In 1835 Treitschke, in vol. 10, pt. 2, p. 22 of his Schni. Kur., states 

 that he has numerous examples of a species which suggests Hubner's 

 figures of tni.r, although there is much divergence. He hazards the 

 remark that Hubner's figure is that of a variety and not typical, and 

 that his specimens seem to fall to this species rather than to any other. 

 Otherwise the resemblance is greatest to Aiirutif< ciirsoria and in size 

 between that species and A. exclamationh. From these remarks it 

 might seem that the author had specimens of liinigera before him, but 

 his subsequent description speaks of red-brown and yellowish-brown 

 markings, which colours are never present in any form of liniigera. 



Herrich-Schaefi'er in his vol. ii., p. 351, of Sijs. Bearb. Schni. I'Air., 

 refers to the extreme variability of Agrotis tnix and notes the " bright 

 green " example figured by Geyer (769), and a "very red" one (18) 

 •figured by himself. His description commences : " Colore valde 

 variabilis, gnseo-ochracea, fusco-grisea, subferruginea, viridi-mixta, 

 eignaturis aut bene expressis aut obsoletissimis." This is expressively 

 full and yet delightfully vague. His further description of the mark- 

 ings would suit niany an Agrotid, but not any particular species, 

 certainly not the liniigera of Britain. In the synonymic catalogue at 

 the end of the volume he lists lunigera as quite unknown to himself. 



In Herrich-Schaeffer's copy of Guenee's yoctnelites, >'<pecies (rencral, 

 which I possess and which has many MS. notes, he makes no additional 

 remarks on any of the forms Guenee includes. 



Guenee's work, XuctKelitet, vol. i., dated 1852, gives as Ai/rath tnix 

 type, the grey individuals strongly powdered with ferruginous- brown, 

 and refers to Godart's figure of lenticidosa which he says is very inexact 

 in illustration. (It is probable, from his remarks, that he had not 

 seen the orij^inal paintings of Dumeril.) There is a sub-variety almost 

 entirely covered with black stri;e, obliterating all the designs, which, 

 he says, corresponds to the black variety of A. sti/ition. 



Guenee next refers to the greyish and greenish examples, but little 

 powdered, with scarcely any markings or stigmata, as var. A, 

 instancing Hubner's figs. 768, 769. Next he refers to the individuals 

 of a brick-red ground-colour Avith almost all the markings obliterated, 

 as var. B, referring to Boisduval's fig. 5 in his Icones. The terranea, 

 Frey., is not considered by him as a distinct race, and he would also 

 include here the fervida of Hiibner, fig. 711, but has not seen it in 

 nature, yet is confident that it cannot be put with A. seiietum. 



He next gives an account of what he says is the Innigeia of 



