198 THE entomologist's record. 



Stephens. He describes it as of a clear testaceous grey, much 

 powdered, and suffused in parts with brown chocolate, with markings 

 as in tri(.i-, but more obscure, the two median spots well developed and 

 strongly margined with black, the orbicular round and clear, the 

 reniform large and entirely filled up, except at one point inside, the 

 claviform short and black. The lower wings white, somewhat 

 yellowish, suft'used with clear grey with nervures of the same colour. 

 That this is not a description of the Inniijera in our cabinets to-day 

 will be evident to anyone. Whether Guenee had an insect before him 

 at the time he made his description is not apparent. He says it 

 partakes of the appearance of e.niaiiiationis and sei/etiim, a remark that 

 he may have copied from Freyer (see above), although it had quite a 

 different appearance from trii.r, to which it is closely related. He 

 also says that he would not say that it might not in time be recognised 

 as a boreal form of tru.r. A specimen which Guenee had sent him 

 for identification from Scotland, which he calls var, A. of lHni<iera, he 

 describes as of a cbar grey ground colour, almost so uniform that it 

 renders the markings very distinct and quite clearly emphasised, and 

 at first glance resembles e.rclaniationis, but belongs to Innujera. From 

 these remarks I would suggest that he had at last an example of the 

 insect we now know as Innitjera before him, an insect without a trace 

 of red, brick-red, ferruginous, testaceous, green, chocolate, or yellow, 

 etc., in its coloration. 



In 1856 Stainton, in his Manual, vol. i., p. 221 and 224, particu- 

 larly mentions the " conspicuously pale orbicular stigma," but says, 

 " F.w. grey shaded with reddish-brown," " the ren.st. . . . filled 

 up with red-brown." 



In his Cataloi/us, ed. i., 1861, and ed. ii., 1871, Staudinger simply 

 gives the trend of continental opinion, in the first edition tni.c and 

 liinifU'ia as two separate species, in the second Inniijera as probably a 

 Darwinian form of trnx. 



Newman, in 1872 in his III. N. H. Brit. Moths, p. 325, gives a 

 short, very good, description and accurate colour discrimination of the 

 present day liinijera, but his figures are too obscure to be recognisable 

 (1st edition). 



In 1884 (1888), in the first volume of Iris, p. 229 Calberla gives 

 an account of various insects taken in the Roman Campagna and 

 among them a Noctuid which nearly resembles sef/etioii and which he 

 supposes resembles the lenticnlosa of Duponchel, and therefore must be 

 a form of tni.r. He gives a figure (sic) of it on pit. xii. which might 

 represent a Noctuid and might, not. As to markings, it is marked all 

 over with obscurities ! 



Tutt, in his British Xoctuae in 1892, vol. ii., p. 15, give an ex- 

 cellent description of British ln)ii(/era (I. of Wight), having examined 

 a very large number, many hundreds of examples, which 1 saw 

 at the time. He says that " reddish forms are excessively rare," and 

 he only knows of " two thus tinged." 



In 1894 Hoffmann in Gross Schui. Enropas, pit. 35, figs. 15, a, b, 

 gives very good figures of the two sexes of British Ik itinera, and in 

 figs. 14 a and 14 b figures the two sexes of trus. There seems no 

 specific comparison between these two, the texture in the reproduction 

 even absolutely prevents this suggestion. In the text p. 83 he treats 

 the two as separate species. 



