54 THE entomologist's record. 



species equally distinct generically), suggests this as a proper occasion 

 to point out that trepida in most of its stages, especially the larval 

 ones, has nothing to do with the species these authorities have placed 

 with it. It ia clear that in providing for it the monotypical genus 

 Peridea, well on to a century ago, Stephens (and Stainton more 

 recently), had more real grasp of the matter than our so much valued 

 modern authorities. 



The British Hydroecias of the '* nictitans " group— with some 



remarks on natural modesty and entomological problems 



awaiting workers in the British fauna. 



By J. W. TUTT, F.E.S. 



Some 22 years ago I was greatly interested in these insects, and 

 differentiated the three species Hydroecia nictitans, Linn., H. lucens, 

 Frr., and H. paludis, a species not before described. Of H. nictitans 

 and H. jMludis, a coloured plate of comparative forms was published 

 {Entom., xxi., pi. i) in December, 1888. 



In 1891 I further dealt with the variation of these three insects at 

 length {Briti^tli Noctiiae and their Varieties, vol. i., pp. 58-64), but few 

 of our British lepidopterists at the time appeared to have a grip of the 

 insects comprising the group, although Mr. W. H. B. Fletcher at 

 once recognised that the species whose larvte he had found and noted as 

 H. nictitans was H. paludis, nor did the importance of his statement that 

 he had "bred a considerable number of so-called H. nictitajis from larvse 

 found on the south coast near Worthing," and that they "all, without 

 exception, produced H. palndis," appear to have the weight attached to it 

 that it deserved. Later I paid further attention to the matter, and 

 notes on examples of Hydroecias from Morpeth were published {Ent. 

 liec, viii., pp. 45-56), whilst, with Mr. Acton, I worked out details of 

 the " moss " forms of Lancashire and their variation, the results being 

 published {Ent. Bee, vii., pp. 78-79), and the specimens exhibited by 

 myself at the meeting of the Entomological Society of London, held 

 on October 2nd, 1895, and at the meeting of the City of London 

 Entomological Society the preceding evening. With the results 

 of the examination of some of these I was less satisfied than 

 with that of any other specimens that came under notice, but 

 have not since given them any attention. Then, in 1899, the 

 Rev. C. R. N. Burrows called attention to the distinctness of H. 

 palndis [Ent. Bee, xi., p. 94). But Mr. Burrows' and our own con- 

 clusions were set at nought almost at once b^'' Barrett, who wrote the 

 same year {Brit. Lep., v., p. 64) : " Variation in this species (H, 

 nictitans) is very great ; some entomologists profess to be able to 

 separate some of the forms as a distinct species under the name lucens, 

 but for this there is not, in my opinion, any ground ; all the variations 

 in size, colour, and distinctness of the reniform stigma, interchange 

 and shade imperceptibly into each other," etc. Not a word about 

 Hydroecia paludis, the most distinct species of all, not a hint as to the 

 differentiation of the forms, just a jumbling in his further remarks of 

 three (or more) species together, and the final statement that " its 

 variations might be dwelt upon indefinitely." With Barrett's experi- 

 ence, he ought to have felt that he was " lumping," and have 

 remembered what has become almost an entomological proverb — " All 



