204 THE entomologist's record. 



to the Natural History Museum, S. Kensington, again. The series of 

 L. nickerlii in the National Collection contains specimens from the 

 Leech collection, and probably they are the actual examples with 

 which Mr. South compared the (/ueneei taken twenty years ago. Com- 

 paring these specimens, marking for marking, with the undoubted 

 specimens of Dr. Chapman, there can be no doubt that they are 

 identical, the only difference being that the whole of the specimens in 

 the Museum collection have a generally darker coloration than those 

 of Dr. Chapman, one of which is lighter than the other three. 



Next I compared the type of (lueneei, the original 1862 (1860 ?) 

 specimen of Doubleday, with the four nickerlii of Dr. Chapman. 

 The lightest specimen, the one referred to above, was almost a 

 facsimile of the Doubleday type of fiueneei, the only differences being 

 that the definition of the fresher insect was more pronounced than 

 that of the specimen nearly half a century old, and rubbed, with 

 defective fringes and blurred definition. It was certainly a remarkable 

 similarity, even the general coloration differed but very slightly. In 

 examining these specimens it is very important to hold them at pre- 

 cisely the same angle with the light or quite different effects are given. 

 It is very useful at times when examining specimens to hold them 

 at a fair distance obliquely, when the definition of some areas comes 

 out better and some shades contrast better with the surrounding colour. 



Finally, I took the specimens of g ueneei (12) and compared them 

 with the nickerlii in the Museum collection. The conclusion I arrived 

 at was the same as expressed above, I could find no mark of distinc- 

 tion in the wing pattern, only the general coloration of a series of the 

 two forms was markedly different. Yet when the two series were held 

 obliquely between the light and the eye, the brown general colour of 

 nickerlii was subdued to some extent, and i\i.Q(iuencei developed a brown 

 shade which assimilated very closely to that of the former. 



By picking specimens of the two series and arranging them with 

 the Doubleday type in the middle, a fairly complete series of gradations 

 from the light <jiieneei to the darkest of the nickerlii, could be made. 



The characters referred to in differentiating the (jiieneei form from 

 L. testacea are apparent in all the examples of L. nickerlii I have seen, 

 but in the latter species all markings are much more definitely 

 developed in contrast with one another. There is the same soft white 

 coloration of the hindwings, the marginal dashes or incipient lunules 

 between the veins are of prefcisely similar appearance, and these wings 

 have not the tarnished appearance of those of L. testacea. The 

 stronger emphasis of the markings in L. nickerlii brings out the I 

 mark in a good proportion of the examples I have seen. The marginal 

 and submarginal areas of the forewings agree in both size and depth 

 of colour in the two forms. The positions of the transverse lines are 

 quite similar, and the emphasis of the different portions of these lines 

 to one another correspond, i.e., where there is a want of definition of a 

 portion of one of these lines compared with another portion in f/ueneei, 

 in nickerlii the definition of the said portion is not so clear as in the 

 portion corresponding to the better defined portion of the line in the 

 former species. The shape of the wings in the two forms are quite 

 similar, and is not the shape of L. testacea. The small deep black 

 marginal lunules present in the forewings of L. (lueneei are reproduced 

 precisely in depth of blackness, in shape, in size, in definiteness, and 

 in separation in the L. nickerlii forms. 



