SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 



99 



tint, and stiperstes decidedly grey. Similar as are the fore wings of these 

 species to those of hlandn, the distinctly pearly white hind wings of both 

 sexes of these species immediately distinguish them. Eeference to 

 Plate c, figs. 4 and 5, will at once make this clear. Besides the differ- 

 ence in colour, I must own that I am unable to point out any constant 

 distinguishing mark, unless perhaps, the rather more angulated elbowed 

 line, with its more strongly developed inner row of black dots (not well 

 shown in Plate c, tig. 5)", in superstes. All Continental entomologists 

 are, however, agi-eed as to their distinctness, and probably the close re- 

 semblance would disappear, had we enough examples to make ourselves 

 really conversant with them. Mr. Vine first recorded ambigna from 

 Brighton, but the specimens captured by Mr. Hodges, at Freshwater, 

 and recorded as this species, are referable to superstes. I have taken 

 specimens of both snperstes and ambigna at Deal, and of superstes 

 certainly, and ambigua probably, in the Isle of Wight. There is no need 

 to go through the history of these species, detailed at length in Vnrieties 

 of British Noctuce, vol. i.', pp. 148-149, but I would call attention to the 

 form described as var. suffusa {I.e., p. 149), and captiired by Mr. Euss 

 at Sligo. I have never seen another specimen. Such a form with its 

 black fore wings, and white hind wings, is striking enough. I trust 

 that the publication of these figures will lead to the further capture and 

 sul)sequent determination of the species on the south coast. I may add, 

 that on the Continent, ambigua is a common S])ecies in many localities ; 

 superstes, very local, or rare. — J. W. Tutt. March 29</*, 1893. 



Caradrina suPERStES. — This species, which to me appears very 

 distinct from C. blanda, enters the British list by two specimens, 

 captured by myself in the Isle of Wight, in July, 1888, when my ac- 

 (piaintance with, and knowledge of the Noctu.'e were of a very 

 superficial character. They were first referred by Mr. Tutt to C. 

 ambigua (fig. o), which had already found a place in our list, through 

 specimens captured by Mr. Vine at Brighton and Mr. Tutt at Deal. 

 Further comparison of the al)Ove, and of specimens captured in Guernsey, 

 in 1890 and 1891, have proved the distinctness of this species from C. 

 ambigna, and, I think, no one knowing the species, either alive or in the 

 cal^inet, could confuse it with any form of C. blanda, hitherto captured 

 in England. The circumscription of the reniform and the orbicular, 

 and also the outside edge of the costal margin, are of a very decided 

 pale yellowish tinge, quite distinct from the light cold gi-ey of the same 

 markings in blanda, whereas the tint of the upper wings is of a light 

 cold shade of gTcy, differing from the warmer, browner shade of blanda. 

 In Guernsey, where I have taken several specimens in different seasons. 

 while specially working for the species, and alive to its distinctness, I 

 have always found the greatest ease in recog-nising it at a glance amongst 

 numerous C. blanda, a fact, which I think my friend, Mr. W. A. Luff, 

 will recollect, from one special occasion when we were sugaring together. 

 My two original specimens (from the Isle of Wight), were taken by 

 myself at sugar, on an evening in early July, when Nocture were 

 coming very freely to sugar, the Agrotidce being particularly well re- 

 presented, and although working each season since in the same locality, 

 I have never had the good fortune to meet with the species there again, 

 Albert J. Hodges. February, 1893. 



EupcEciLiA suBROSEANA : A QUERY ! — As I noticc, on p. 85 of the 

 Ent. liecord for March, a statement by Mr. W. Reid, of Pitcaple, to the 



