4 THE KNTOMOLOGIST S RKf'OUD. 



followed the parents to a veiy great extent, as I liave not bred a single 

 nniform brown specimen, although these are usually met witli freely. — 

 A. W. Mera. December, 1892. 



The Nocture in the British ]Museubi Collection. — In the early 

 part of 1892, in company with Mr. J. E. Eol)Son, I looked over the 

 Nocture in the British Museum Collection, and made a few notes on 

 the various species. Some of these I have criticised at length in my 

 :recently published " Stray Notes on the NoctuEe," but I was unable to 

 deal with all of them. Besides, some are merely notes for consideration 

 and further reference, others relate to glaring blunders. If these notes 

 aid in getting rid of some of the numerous errors in the collection, and 

 calling attention to doul)tful matters, they will have served their pur- 

 pose. The notes I made at the time wex'e as follows : — *' Ccdathysa 

 aUernanns appears to be very much out of place, undoubtedly belongs 

 with Cleorerln vhainalis. MicroceJia huh'cans should be jilaced in the 

 same genus as Herat era serena. These are certainly altogether mis- 

 placed. Agrotis herlagi is probably a pale ochreous and obsoletely 

 marked specimen of ^4. ripcp. Agrotis grasllnii is jirobably a pale 

 ochreous valligera. Agrotis catJiarina is probably a Treniocampa, very 

 like Pachnohia ruhricosa, the antenna are very similar to those of the 

 latter sjiecios. Agrotis olivalis, Grote, wants comparing critically with 

 A. tritici. Agrotis nigricans var. carbonea — Four typical specimens of 

 this variety are mixed up with Agrotis tritici. The specimens 

 marked as typical A. ohelisca, are all essentially hastifera, Donz. 

 Agrotis insvlsa, Walker — The type appears to be a typical A. nigricans. 

 Agrotis transversa, Walk., appears to l)e A. corticen. Agrotis hi/perborea, 

 a A^^ry fine series of the typical grey or glaucous form, is in tlie col- 

 lection ; then, in another genus, among Pacini obia carnea, are tAvo 

 specimens of A. hyperborea var. carnica, correctly labelled l)y Westwood. 

 The error is most glaring. The person responsible for this seems to 

 have considered that carnea and carnica must be the same species as the 

 names are somewhat alike. Noctua margaritacea — Another glaring 

 error, the last specimen in the series of this species being a typical 

 glareosa. N. perconflua, Grote — This is certainly a variety of N. f estiva. 

 A second perconflua occurs in another drawer and appears identical 

 with some of the Perth forms oi /estiva. A. punicea, Jih. — Another 

 unaccountable error in this series, the two last specimens are N. umbrosa. 

 Semiophora declarans. Walk, wants critically comparing with A. ripce. 

 Mamestra {Hadenn) thalassina — The most interesting (?) series noted. 

 As made up in this collection, it consists of eight specimens of thalassina, 

 two of II. adnsta, and four //. genista'. M. invisa, Walker — Tliis is a 

 small Miana strigilis. Mamestra infansta. Walk, is prol)ably Agrotis 

 cursoria. Mamestra reniforniis, Grote, appears to be identical with our 

 Hydrcecia leucostigma. Leucania iithargyria, three specimens in the 

 series are L. albipnncta. Leucania straminea — Of a Avdiole row thus 

 named only scA^en are straminea." — J. W. Tutt. December, 1892. 



Variation. 



CoLTAS EDiTSA A'AR. HELKiE. — At Folkestone this year Mr. W. Austin 

 and myself liaA'e taken, from August lOth to September 80th, besides a 



