201 [September, 



Fig. ^.^Lujjerina guenrei, DLL ,^ . — TLis species was first 

 descriLed and named l)y tLe Lite Mr. Henry DouLleday, in the 

 Entomologists' Annual for 1864, from two out of tliree specimens 

 taken at Ehyl, in North Wales, Ly Messrs. T. Porter and H. 

 Stephenson, of Bolton, about 1860 or 1862. Nothing more was heard 

 of the species until 1889, when Mr. T. Baxter found one on the sand- 

 hills at St. Anne's-on-Sea, in Lancashire, and another one two years 

 later in 1891. As the insect was again lost for twenty years, it had 

 Lecome regarded, Loth in Britain and on the Continent, as a variety 

 of L. testacea, Lut in 1909, Mr. W. Yates found it again at St. Anne's- 

 on-Sea, and he and Mr. T. Baxter then succeeded in getting it in 

 considerable numLers, when its total distinctness from testacea was 

 apjiarent at once. During last year, 1910, it was again taken Ly 

 several collectors in large numLers. I have seen two specimens of a 

 minor variety (in which the pale line which ordinarily runs parallel 

 with the outer margin is Lroadened out to the Llack marginal lunules, 

 thus forming a pale stripe), in addition to the melanic form alluded 

 to it in my note on the species in Ent. Mo. Mag., Nov., 1910, p. 263. 

 The specimen figured is from my own series.* g. t. p. 



Figs. 5, 6 (^, 7 9 . — Xanthia oceUaris, Bkh., seems to have Lean 

 first taken in Britain Ly Mr. E. H. Taylor and Prof. Eaphael Meldola, 

 at WimLledon Common and Twickenham, respectively, as long ago as 

 1893. Odd specimens continued to turn up year after year, Lut it 

 was not luitil Mr. H. O. Mills turned his attention to it, that much 

 was known of it as a British insect. From specimens he took in the 

 Thames Valley in 1907, he reared a consideraLle numLer, and has 

 puLlished a history of the species in this Journal (Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 DecemLer, 1908, pp. 267-9). Prom the Lvood then descriLed, only 

 what is apparently the ordinai-y form in Britain (Fig. 5) seems to 

 have Leen Lred, Lut in 1910, a Lrood reared Ly Mr. Mills produced 

 two other distinct varieties (Figs. 6 and 7), one of them, as will Le 



* Since the foregoing was written, Dr. T. A. Chapman and Mr. H. J. Turner have published 

 (Ent. Hccoi-d, July-August, 1911, pp. 201-5) an account of investigations by themselves, wliich 

 go far to cstaUish the correctness of their conclusion that this insect is really identical with the 

 Luperi/na nickerlii of Freyer. A close and careful exuniinatiou (if the genitalia of the two sliow 

 these organs to be ajiparently absolutely alike ; and althnufjli, admittedly, thei-e is a good deal of 

 diffci-ence in the ap]iearance of the moths, it seems to be the effect of colour only, the markings 

 (if lidth apparently being (|iuite similar. On the other hand, had not the genitalia liccn examined, 

 it is proliable tliat their distinctness as species would not have been doubted ; and as our insular 

 form is, contrary to general experience, as compared with the usual tendency of Continental 

 \ariati()n, much the paler foi-m ; and that, too, though occurring on ground which flistinctly 

 produces melanism in a number of other Nocture ; it .seems advisable to await further evidence 

 as to similarity of the eggs, larva;, &ic., before we can be quite certain that both belong to nickerlii. 

 Moreover, it is likely that Gmincie was (juite familiar with 7!icte-/u, and if so, nuist have been 

 thoroughly satisfied as to the distinctness of (juened, or he would not have concurred in Double- 

 day's suggestion to name it after himself. Nick-erlii, too, is rei)orted as rare <m the Continent 

 wliereas guem'ei, although local, is almndant on the spots it does frequent. — G. T. P. ' 



