VARIATION. 9 



they are to my vision, structural, as well as superficial ; at least, I call a 

 more robust thorax, and more truncate wings, structural ; of course, 

 you may, and do get larger and smaller specimens of each, still, these 

 respective differences exist. But Mr. Tutt finds these characters 

 '' superficial," and of no importance, I should like to ask Mr. Tutt 

 if he ever saw what we know as fasciuncula, in copula with strigilis ? 

 because, if they are only one species, our mistake in thinking them two 

 would in no way interfere with their free inter-copulation ! This, to my 

 mind, points pretty conclusively the other way, and that they are two 

 good species. It would indeed be " passing strange " that we should 

 have had so common a species, with three divergent forms, taken and 

 seen by thousands every year side by side, or otherwise, and yet that 

 these three forms, say strigilis normal, fasciuncula normal, and var. 

 ca7ia should never pass the bound of recognition. I am not prepared 

 to argue that you may not find a complete link, possibly, in fasciiaicula 

 and var. cana ; but fancy a species as prone to vary as is strigilis, 

 stopping just short of a complete chain ; it is to say the least of it, 

 hardly probable. In conclusion, Mr. Tutt says his " Armagh speci- 

 mens will do for either " strigilis or fasciuncula. I agree ^ with him ! 

 They may; because he has both species amongst them, seven fasciuncula 

 and two strigilis. — W. H. Tugwell, 6, Lewisham Road, Greenwich. 



My friend, Mr. Tugwell, has formed such a decided opinion on the 

 Armagh specimens, that I have great pleasure in printing his communi- 

 cation as his opinion. But this opinion differs from that of many other 

 excellent lepidopterists who have attempted to draw the line. Of these 

 I will only name one, our mutual friend, Mr. G. T. Porritt, who believes 

 that of these nine queer specimens four are strigilis and five fasciuncula, 

 The matter has now got to this point. By the pure ipse dixit of myself 

 and other lepidopterists we consider that strigilis and fasciuncula may 

 be one or two species. No one can prove or disprove either suggestion 

 positively until the species is, or are, bred and differentiated in the 

 larval stage. All our superficial arguments will not alter facts, and 

 until some good lepidopterist has worked out the life-histories of strigilis 

 and fasciuncula and placed beyond doubt their distinctness or otherwise, 

 we must agree to differ on the exact amount of differentiation we allow 

 fasciuncula to have undergone. For the purpose of directing attention 

 to the matter I consider my evidence very sufficient. Mr. Tugwell's 

 statement " I have never taken. . . . group," I quite agree with ; I have 

 never taken one, but the Rev. Mr. Johnson has. I don't like to suggest 

 carelessness to my friend, but has he read my article, p. 243, to write 

 such a sentence as : — " Why Mr. Tutt can on this extremely slight and 

 superficial character of colouring alone," etc. ? I think he can never 

 have seen what I have written, or he is writing from memory which has 

 deceived him. I cannot help returning the compliment by asking 

 Mr. Tugwell whether he ever sa.\f fasciuncula in cop. \i\\}n fasciuncula, or 

 strigilis with strigilis. I certainly have never seen fasciuncula in cop. 

 with strigilis (I don't know that I ever made a remark which might be 

 construed as a suggestion that I had), but there is a good deal of this 

 sort of thing we don't see. I am rather at sea, too, over my friend's 



•^ This is funny. How can Mr. Tugwell agree with me ? His st\en fasciuncula 

 are (in my opinion), to all intents and purposes, strigilis, and his two strigilis — 

 fasciuncula. 



C 



