202 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



The conclusion I arrive at is that ijueneel and nickerlii are one and 

 the same species. The genitalia are identical ; they differ from those 

 of testacea precisely as described by Mr. Pierce [Ent., loc. cit.), and in 

 several other quite definite details which he did not, probably, think 

 it necessary to complicate his notes with. 



Someone will say, if the genitalia are the same, and the two are 

 only one species, why are they so unlike ? to which query my reply is 

 simple. The moths are not unlike ; to my eye they are identical, and 

 they each differ from testacea in precisely the same manner. I will go 

 further and say that the best figures I know of L. nickerlii are in Mr. 

 Turner's plate {Ent. Bee, vol. xxiii., pi. iii., figs. 1 and 2). These, 

 which Mr. Turner calls var. fiisca, come out in the plate rather darker 

 than the actual specimens, but it is probable that even darker specimens 

 of (/ueneei occur, in which case the moths themselves, and not merely 

 their figures, would be simply nickerlii. Mr. South's figures {Ent., 

 xlii., pi. vii., figs. 1 and 2) of nickerlii seem to be that species, but if 

 so, cannot have been the examples submitted to Mr. Pierce. Mr. 

 South does not tell us from what specimens these photographs of 

 nickerlii were taken. 



The only difference between nickerlii and (jueneei is that the former 

 is a dark moth, the latter rather a light one. But Mr. Turner's var. 

 (ab. ?) fiisca goes more than half way to bridge over the difference, and 

 such differences of dark and light races are too familiar to us to found 

 species upon them. The curious point is that our insular form, 

 contrary to the general rule, is the pale one and not the dark one. Its 

 habitat seems fully to account for this, what the habitat of nickerlii 

 may be, I do not know, it is indeed too rare a species for anything very 

 definite of this to be known. It is to be expected that the identification 

 of the two forms as one species, and the recorded habits of (jueneei, 

 may enable some of our continental confreres to make the species 

 more familiar to us. 



The photographs on plates vii, viii and ix, will show the difference 

 between testacea and nickerlii, and the agreement between those of 

 nickerlii and its var. (jiieneei. These show the five points of difterence 

 noted by Mr. Pierce between j/neneei and testacea and the agreement of 

 (/ueneei and nickerlii in these items. There are, however, quite a 

 number of other points in which nickerlii (var. i/iieneei) differs from 

 testacea. The points Mr. Pierce notes (Ent., xlii., p. 292) are the 

 pointed extremity of the clasp in (jneneei, form and hairs of clavus, size 

 and breadth of uncus, armament of fedoeagus, and of vesica. 



Those who profess to be still sceptical as to the value of the 

 genital structures, as affording characters for the discrimination of 

 species, seem to treat them as of a similar order of importance, as Mr. 

 Porritt expresses, not altogether unjustly, as belonging to a varying 

 spot or shade of colour and in wing markings {Ent., vol. xliv., p. 227). 

 It would be more correct to value these structures as equal to that of 

 the whole thorax, wings and legs included. They are the whole of 

 two segments, with some other important structure added, and present 

 not one character, but a whole host, just as the wings do. The objection 

 to them is that they require some preparation before we can examine 

 them, and then usuall}^ require microscopic scrutiny. A further 

 difficulty is that with such defective technique, as a non-specialist like 

 myself can apply, the preparations do not always afford photographs 



