BRITISH HYDRCECIAS. 55 



l)ef>:inners lump (they are not trained to see differences), but everyone 

 •ends by splitting (small differences become easily noticed with experi- 

 ence)." Anyway, Barrett evidently studied these Hydrcpcias in- 

 sufficiently to make anything of them. 



In 1902, Dr. A. R. Wallace requested me to write for the new 

 edition of Island Life a list of the various forms of the lepidoptera 

 peculiar to our islands. The compilation worked out at so great a 

 length, that I at last eliminated only the most striking cases for Dr. 

 Wallace's book, but published the whole list ,in the I^nt. Record, 

 vol. xiv. Here, among other things, I note (pp. 116-117) the 

 Hydroecias, and of Ji. paludis I write, " A quite distinct species, Ixit 

 closely allied to H. nictitans, chiefly confined to coast districts of the 

 south-east of England," etc. Then Mr. Studd and the Rev. E. C. 

 Dobree-Fox {Ent. Rcc., xvi., p. 107) write on H. paludis, and point 

 out its distinctness, and I note {op. rit., xvii., p. 305) on its abundance 

 on the saltmarshes of the Medway in 1905, Mr. Ovenden doing the 

 same {op. cit., xviii., p. 18), whilst the sale of some fine ones at 

 Stevens' in Mr. G. F. Mathew's collection, is chronicled {op. cit., 

 p. 330). Then, in 1907, Mr. South {Moths British Isles, i., p. 284), 

 without even mentioning lucens, sinks paludis as a form of H. nictitans, 

 in the following authoritative sentence: " Specimens found in marshes, 

 •especially those by the sea, are usually somewhat larger than normal, 

 but I cannot see that they otherwise differ from forms of H. nictitans." 

 H. paludis, therefore, after all our careful study and attention, and in 

 spite of the fact that it would apparently breed true — at an}' rate, 

 larvae obtained in certain districts produced nothing else — was 

 ultimately settled as being undifferentiable from il. nictitans. Here 

 was a state of bliss which personally I hoped would last for ever. 



But Mr. F. N. Pierce was, whilst Mr. South \vas publishing this 

 welcome conclusion, microscopically examining and photographing the 

 S ancillarj' appendages of the Noctuids for his forthcoming book on 

 the subject, and the Rev. C. R. N. Burrows was busy helping with the 

 same work. The latter gentleman, when he came to deal with the 

 Hydroecias, started to worry me to name specimens, and it was in vain 

 that I told him that, whatever little I had once known about them 

 was dissipated in the clouds of the past, and that the more recent 

 authorities, who had dropped them, would be able to give all their 

 reasons, because still fresh in mind, for ignoring what had been 

 written in 1888 and 1891. A further plea that I had other work on 

 hand was useless, and I had to name Hydroecias, and determine 

 nictitans, lucens, and paludis, at sight, as in the days of my roseate but 

 past 5'outh, and as if these had not been sunk because there were no 

 differences by which they could be separated. Then came the wonder- 

 ful discovery — the genitalia proved that Hj/droecia nictitans, H. lucens, 

 and II. paludis, were distinct species, widely distinct ; and I was 

 cynical enough to retort that I knew that 20 years ago ; that I had 

 described {Brit. Xoct. and their Varieties, vol. i., pp. 58-64) six clearly 

 distinct aberrations of H. nictitans, four of IJ. lucens, and three 

 (almost racial) of H. paludis. I further spitefully added, that no 

 collector who could distinguish Catocala nupta (the red undervving) 

 from Triphaena pronnha (the yellow underwing), could fail to distin- 

 guish IJi/droecia nictitans and //. paludis, even if he came a cropper 

 over //. lucens. What 1 was told about my amazing cleverness by my 



