78 [April, 



But what does Mr. Barrett mean ? He says that Mrs. Bazett's specimens, 

 bred from undoubted crepuscularia ova, and emerging in July, are " obviously 

 biundularia." Is this intended to mean that vphat we call hiundularia are a second 

 brood of what vfo call crepuscularia ? The specimens on which the statement is 

 founded are " not more than one half the size of the parents," and the parent 

 crepuscularia are certainly as large as ordinary hiundularia. But putting this 

 aside, how can insects emerging in July be " obviously " a species which emerges 

 two months earlier ? How can we explain the appearance of hiundularia in so 

 many places where crepuscularia never occurs ? 



Mr. Barrett makes considerable use of my statement that I had " only once 

 had a second brood of hiundularia here." We are accustomed to call an autumn 

 emergence a second brood. This was all I meant, but I should perhaps have been 

 more explicit, and said, " I only once had hiundularia emei'ge in autumn," and then 

 but two or three out of a large brood. The fact, correctly stated, will not bear the 

 inference Mr. Barrett draws from the words I used. I never saw bitmdularia in 

 the woods in the autumn, but had I done so, I fail to see how that would have 

 strengthened Mr. Barrett's position. He also refers to the date of some specimens 

 taken by Mr. G. 0. Day, of Knutsford, but whilst I admit the importance of dates in 

 the controversy, the day of the month is of little consequence unless we know the 

 year. 1893, when Mr. Day's early specimens were taken, was an excessively early 

 season, spring insects v/ere on the wing a full month before their usual time, and I 

 know of other hiundularia taken in March that year. Mr. Holland, of Reading, 

 for instance, took one on March 26th. 



To my thinking, this is all very much beside the mark. It is easy to under- 

 stand slight irregularities in appearance, particularly with species] emerging rather 

 early in the year. With a cold February and March and a warm April, the last 

 examples of the earlier species will scarcely be on the wing ere they will be joined 

 by the first of the later species. That they do not mix and pair is clear from the 

 fact that each still bears the same distinguishing characteristics as when they were 

 first differentiated. 



Much of the confusion in reference to these species arose from the nomencla- 

 ture. Stainton called the early insect laricaria, and the later one crepuscularia. 

 Newman called the early one crepuscularia, and the later one hiundularia, and this 

 crossing of names led to endless blunders, whilst, to make matters worse, Newman 

 figured typical hiundularia for crepuscularia, and gave a figure for hiundularia 

 which does not resemble the ordinary form of either species. It is much to be 

 regretted that Stainton's names were not retained. Had we called the early 

 species laricaria, it would have emphasized the preference this insect displays for 

 larch woods, an important factor in the controversy. By this cross naming and 

 figuring collectors were led astray, many tried to make both species out of the 

 common one, without any wrong intent, and even yet hiundularia is sent out for 

 the rarer insect. But the better informed Lepidopterists now know the type forms 

 of both, and if we take the Reading examples alone, as specimens from a district 

 where both occur, they are abundantly distinct. Apart from the difference in 

 colour, the second line in Mrs. Bazett's crepuscularia is very distinctly double, with 

 a paler space between the lines, the outer lino of the pair being in most cases 

 as clear and well defined as the inner. The small second brood specimens, though 



