56 THE entomologist's record. 



reverend friend, had better be left unsaid, but it is necessary to take 

 the entomological public thus far into confidence to lead up to what 

 follows. 



Whilst examining the genitalia of these species, Mr. Burrows came 

 across a form that, in its ancillary appendages, could not possibly be 

 either of the three above species. Specimens were submitted to me, 

 and on every occasion, without hesitation, I referred them to H. Incem^. 

 The appendages showed that they could not be this species, and, 

 finally, I was begged to find some distinguishing imaginal character 

 by means of which this last-mentioned insect could be discriminated 

 from its congeners ; the specimens were exhibited at the meetings of 

 almost all the larger entomological societies in the country, in the hope 

 that some lynx-eyed discoverer would spot a difference, but without 

 success, and, after referring to the unnamed insect in a " Current Note " 

 (E)it. Recnrd, xx., p. 146), as crinanemk, I advised Mr. Burrows to con- 

 firm the name he, or Mr. Pierce, had suggested on its genitalic characters. 

 This he did {op. cit., xx., p. 184), describing it as crinanensis, and 

 finally, in 1909, Mr. Pierce published his work The Genitalia of the 

 Noctiiidae, differentially describing (pp. 34-35) the <? genitalia of the 

 four species — nictitans, lucens, pahidis, and crinanensis, whilst on p. 17 

 he observes that Burrows and Pierce examined close on 100 examples 

 of the " nictitans group," before they satisfied themselves of the exist- 

 ence of several species " amongst insects which have previously been 

 popularly considered one, confirming Mr. Tutt's suggestions of 

 20 years ago." This is one way of putting it, but it would have been 

 perhaps a little more accurate if it had been urged that the examina- 

 tion confirmed the already settled opinion of those few who had 

 carefully studied the species from other standpoints. The point is 

 that the species for years had never been doubted hy those feir vho 

 knew thevi ; what others thought was immaterial, and did not affect 

 the scientific position. Anyway, the confirmation by Mr. Pierce and 

 Mr. Burrows was most welcome and opportune in the face of Mr. 

 South's more recently-published statement. 



One would have supposed that the matter would have remained 

 here, but Mr. Burrows, with unwearying energy, commenced the task 

 of dissecting all the examples of the group he could appropriate. He 

 discovered that, apart from the striking genitalic characters shown by 

 the J s of the four species, equally marked characters distinguished 

 the $ s. He proved up to the hilt that the genitalic characters of 

 each sex were permanently fixed. There can be no doubt on these 

 characters whether one is dealing with H. nictitans, H. lucens, H. 

 jmhuMs, or H. crinanensis. So strikingly different are the genitalic 

 characters of crinanensis from those of lucens, that one wonders 

 whether they can even belong to the same genus, yet I must confess I 

 cannot seize on an obvious superficial character that will unfailingly 

 discriminate the imagines. Nor is this really all, for we understand 

 that other genitalic puzzles still exist, and remain to be cleared up. 



Now Mr. Burrows brings me his imagines — long series of the four 

 species — all the crinanensis, most of the lucens, and many of the 

 nictitans and j)aliulis, tested as to their species by the genitalia ; he 

 hands over to me his mounted microscopic slides, the genitalia so 

 splendidly mounted that one is consumed with envy to think how far 

 in this respect he has out-distanced us all, he hands over Mr. Pierce's 



