172 THE entomologist's record. 



striations very plainly marked, which appears to be peculiar i to the 

 "Fens." The moth itself cannot be called an exclusive "fen" insect, 

 but this form appears to be so, and follows out my idea of a typical 

 "fen" moth. If we inquire into the reason of this prevalent colour and 

 style of markings, I think we must come to the conclusion that it is 

 due to a " protective resemblance " to the dead reeds and sedges on 

 which they rest, and, indeed, it seems beyond doubt when we see how 

 like M.flainmea and the other " wainscots " are to the nodes of the 

 reedS; resting as they do head downwards and with the wings wrapped 

 round the reed. 



As regards the Rev. F. O. Morris's remarks on P. bucephala, I 

 certainly should have thought he had lived long enough as a naturalist 

 to know that so far as trees are concerned, the larvae of this common 

 moth are omnivorous, and the natural conclusion is that such a species 

 is generally to be found feeding on the prevailing tree of the district. 

 Here there is very little birch ; elm and lime are the prevailing trees, 

 and are accordingly well patronized by the "buff-tipped" larvas ; but in 

 a district where birch prevails, it is the tree most affected. Then, as 

 regards the resemblance of the imago to a piece of birch stick, I don't 

 think there is so much difference between birch and other sticks, es- 

 pecially sallow and willow, as to arouse the suspicions of a bird ; it does 

 not seem feasible that birds would be able to discriminate between one 

 piece of stick and another, and even if they could, I should think if they 

 saw several pieces of stick lying at the foot of an elm tree, and amongst 

 them was what their botanical knowledge told was a piece of birch, that 

 they would hardly go out of their way to see why it was there ; and the 

 frivolity of the reverend gentleman's arguments are complete when he 

 talks of the moth's resemblance to a stick rendering it conspicuous when 

 resting on the green leaves of the elm. As a well-known matter of fact, 

 they rest on the trunk of the tree or on the ground, only frequenting the 

 leaves at night when depositing ova, and then they are protected by 

 the darkness and the fact that all respectable birds are asleep ; and 

 such birds that do hunt by night, as the night-jar, etc, usually catch 

 insects on the wing rather than on trees. 



I cannot think Mr. Morris does well in so frivolously attacking a 

 theory put forward, as he says, "by our wise men." These wise men, 

 as he chooses to term them, are the men we have to thank for advancing 

 our hobby of making a collection of moths into an interesting and 

 instructive science. They are specialists at their work, devoting all 

 their time to studying and making known these interesting facts, so 

 lightly criticised by the Rev. F. O. Morris, who is well known as a 

 writer of popular books on Natural History, but who is no scientist. I 

 wonder how he reconciles the wonderful resemblance of the Indian leaf 

 butterflies (which, when resting with the wings closed, are so like a 

 dead leaf as to make it very difficult to detect them, even when one is 

 aware of their presence) with his statement, " there is just a substratum 

 of truth or apparent truth in the notion they broach about it " ? This 

 paper is necessarily very incomplete, as it only occurred to me to write 

 it in the present week and then only as an answer to the Rev. F. O. 

 Morris's article. I have not been able to consult any of the literature 



^ Possibly I am mistaken in considering the form peculiar to the Fen ; certainly 

 it is common there. — W.F. 



