222 [October, 



mann, " icimmerann, Kdm.," which Zeller testifies, by another label, 

 to agree with " loimmerana, Tr. 10, 3. Ill ; HS. 4, 246, f 309 ; Hum. 

 p. 170." We must accept this as the true wimmerana, Tr., Treitschke 

 having received his specimen, with the same name, also from Kinder- 

 mann. Zeller's second specimen, a small (^ , is from Fischer von 

 Roslerstamm, labelled " tvimmerann, Filnfk. FJl.688," and wath these 

 he places a third (J, from Sarepta, Christoph, 7. V. 1859, which agrees 

 with a series in Christoph's Collection, — these doubtless are the 

 topotypes of "Srp." in Staudinger's Catalog. With the exception of 

 a slightly different arrangement of the white costal marks towards 

 the apex (probably somewhat variable), there seems to be no sufficient 

 reason for separating these Sarepta specimens from toimmernna, but it 

 certainly is noticeable that these marks do not taper to fine points (as 

 described by Treitschke), but converge upon each other before losing 

 anything of their width, and the first and fourth from the apex are 

 usually joined at their points, enclosing a space in which are three 

 shorter ones ; moreover the hindwings are paler. 



The second block consists of three specimens ot" maritima, 

 Wstwd., one sent by Barrett, as " wimmerana,''' in 1871, the others by 

 Doubleday, as " wimmerana ? ", in 1874. Zeller did not actually place 

 these with his wimmerana, still less did he put theui near candidulaiia, 

 Nlku., but we must admit that these are not the pale variety which 

 has more justifiably been compared with that species. 



Hofmann's Collection contains as " loionmerana " three specimens 

 only, two from Herrich-iSchiiffer's Collection, agreeing with his fig. 309, 

 and perhaps not materially disagreeing with Treitschke's descrij)tion, 

 but in spite of Zeller's opinion to the contiary, as slated on his label 

 referred to above, all three (and [irobably also the figure) are unques- 

 tionably incana, Z. 



Duponchel [II \. Lp. Fr. Sppl. IV. 185-6, no. 364. PI. 66. 1 

 (1842)] states that he received a specimen from Fischer von Rosler- 

 stamm, and that the species had not been found anywhere but in 

 Hungary, where it was discovered by Kindermann : his figure (66.1) 

 $ , therefore represents another of the original specimens. The clue 

 to the locality is to be found on the label of Zeller's second specimen, 

 where " Fiiufk." evidently refers to Fiinfkirchen (== Pecs), on the 

 west side of the Dauube (about 100 miles Kouth of Buda-Pesth, 

 where Kindermann resided). 



