LTJPERINA (?) (aPAMEa) GUENEEI, DOUBLEDAY, AS A SPECIES, 201 



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

 as a British species (with plates). 



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

 (Concluded from p. 173.) 



It will be recalled to mind that Mr. R. South, in November 1889, 

 identified a specimen of ;jiieneei sent him by Mr. Baxter, from St. 

 Anne's-on-Sea, as nickerUi. He says {Kut., xxii., p. 271): " By the 

 courtesy of Mr. Leech, I have had an opportunity of examining three 

 specimens of nickerUi from Bohemia." These specimens in the Leech 

 collection were probably the true nickerUi. Mr. South continued in 

 his belief until the result of Mr. Pierce's examination and comparison 

 of the genitalia of tcstacca and (supposed) nickerUi forced him to abandon 

 his views [Knt., xlii., p. 292) in December, 1909. That the specimens, 

 obtained by Mr. South and sent to Mr. Pierce for examination were 

 not nickerUi and must have been a form of testacca, seems now to be 

 amply demonstrated, and Mr. South's previous identification of 1889 

 is supported by the extremely strong evidence of the identity of the 

 genital structures in (jneneei and nickerUi. 



I have before me four specimens of undoubted nickerUi and twelve 

 examples of tfneneci, and I must say that a very close examination and 

 comparison of the markings gives no point of differentiation. All the 

 markings of the one form are in the other, of course differently 

 emphasised as to depth of colour, and differently contrasted with the 

 adjacent markings in tint, but still all are there in similar positions 

 and covering almost exactly similar and equal areas of the wing surface. 

 Still, so far as my experience goes, one would never confuse one form 

 with the other, the dominating shades of the two forms are very 

 distinct, not even could var. (ab.) fnsca be confused with nickerUi, 

 although as Dr. Chapman says the fii/nre of the former might readily 

 pass for a representation of the latter form. 



Dr. Chapman has, most kindly and at considerable inconvenience 

 to himself just now, given me a closely detailed report of his careful 

 examination of the genitalia of the species under consideration, which 

 I herewith give in full. At the same time he has furnished the 

 material, from which the three plates have been made, to illustrate his 

 remarks and to emphasise the results he considers himself justified in 

 assuming from the facts he has ascertained. He has no doubt what- 

 ever that L. (/ueneei and L. nickerUi are only geographical forms of one 

 and the same species. He writes as follows : — 



" Mr. Turner asks me to report on the genitalia of the species he has 

 been examining in connection with L. f/iieneei, a species of which the 

 unusual number taken last year has enabled him to tell us more than 

 previous authorities with limited material succeeded in doing. The 

 account given by Messrs. South and Pierce (Ent., 1909, p. 289) fails to 

 reach a final result from the unfortunate circumstance that they had 

 various forms, but not the one that gives the key to the true solution. 

 Mr. Pierce reports his nickerUi as probably a form of testacea, and in 

 this he was probably right, but his expressing such a doubt is proof 

 positive that his specimens were not nickerUi, the appendages of which 

 are quite distinct from those of testacea. ThenickerUi I have obtained 

 not only appear to agree with the description and figures of nickerUi 

 but are quite distinct from testacea, though still they are sufficiently 

 near it to belong to some species that can be no other than nickerUi. 



