LUPERINA (?) (aPAMEa) GUENEEI, DOUBLEDAY, AS A SPECIES. 171 



Luperlna (?) (Apamea) gueneei, Doubleday, as a species, and 

 as a British species {with plates). 



By Hy. J. TURNER, F.E.S. 

 {Continued from -page 92.) 



On page 53 I have stated that the I mark "is practically always 

 present, and more distinct rather than less" in L. teMacca, while it is 

 only by a stretch of the imagination that it can be seen as at all present 

 in L. {)ueneei. Mr. Baxter has just forwarded to me an example of 

 the latter species in which this I mark is distinctly present, but 

 he saj^s that it is a very rare aberration, as he only knows of 

 two specimens. He suggests that it might be called ab. iota. 

 Mr. C. W. Colthrup and other gentlemen have either written or 

 spoken to me as to the presence or absence of the I mark in L. 

 testacea. Mr. Colthrup says that "in a long series taken last Autumn, 

 in most of the specimens the longitudinal I mark is conspicuous 

 by its absence." I have been unable to see his specimens, but he 

 has sent me a photograph of ten varieties of this series, and strange to 

 say at least eight of them show this mark rather more distinctly than 

 less. His series all came from East Kent. Fig. 8, plate vi., is a very 

 aberrant example of L. testacea, which Mr. Tonge states is typical of 

 a number taken by him on the East Coast. I have doubted its identity, 

 especially as the underside is almost identical in development of 

 transverse lines, discoidals, etc., with L. cespitis, while the general 

 basal colour is by no manner of means "suffused testaceous." Dr. 

 Chapman, however, considers it can be no other species than L. testacea. 

 On the same plate are figured L. nickerlii, figs. 1 and 2, L. dinnerilii, 

 figs. 6 and 6, and L. testacea, figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8. Figs. 3 and 4 are 

 from Bohemian examples, while figs. 7 and 8 are Suffolk specimens. 



Since writing the above notes I have been to South Kensington to 

 look over the material in the National Collection, taking with me 

 a short series of L. c/iieneei and about forty varied specimens of 

 L. testacea for comparison. The following notes are the result. 



Not a single Z.. testacea has the same shape of wing as L. (jneneei, 

 although the difference may be indescribable in words it is there ; 

 a series of each species side by side illustrates it well. 



There is a specimen in the collection called baxteri. It came from 

 the Leech Collection, and is labelled "Central France. Coll. M. Sand." To 

 me it appears to be an undoubted L. testacea. The ixiarginal area is dark, 

 which never occurs in L. ijneneei; the wing shape is that of L. testacea; 

 the fringes are certainly not at all characteristic of L. (jneneei, in which 

 species they are light with strong light rays going well between the 

 conspicuous lunules and becoming gradually evanescent in the light 

 marginal area. This Leech coll. baxteri has a distinctly dark marginal 

 area, which is one of the strong characters of L. testacea. The general 

 colour is that of L. testacea, but not so strongly " suffused testaceous " 

 as in the generality of specimens. The I mark is fairly well developed, 

 the lunule ends being comparatively large. The light narrow band 

 inside the dark marginal area goes out sharply towards the apex, 

 another of the strong characters of L. testacea. It is certainly not the 

 baxteri we know in England, which has a light ground colour, in fact 

 " white " is the word used in its diagnosis, a term which could not be 



