VAKIATTOK. 47 



conclusion, undoubtedly Dr. Buckell, Mr. Battley and others could 

 speak if there were need (which indeed there is not) ; what has become 

 of the remainder of the exhibit is Mr. Clark's business, but Mr. 

 Frohawk must not lose his head nor make himself childishly ridiculous 

 over my bona fides. I do not suppose that, Avith sucli a series as Mr. 

 Clark had, he would keep the whole for himself, and I su])pose that 

 some of the specimens have been distributed. j\ly statement is beyond 

 cavil, and I do not feel inclined to pry into Mr. Clark's business as he 

 evidently showed Messrs. Frohawk and Carpenter all he cared to, and if 

 they went to him in the same spirit as Mr. Frohawk has shoAvn in his 

 note, I am not surprised that they did not see the series even if Mr. 

 Clark should have happened to have kept them. With Mr. Clark's 

 series vividly in my mind when I ins]iected Mr. Carjienter's, the latter 

 looked a most uninteresting lot. 



(2). Mr. Frohawk further writes : — " When I exhibited the speci- 

 mens of a second emergence of A. paphia .... Mr. Tutt stated that 

 he had lately seen examples of a second brood of A. paphia in the 

 collection of Mr. J. A. Clark, who had obtained tliem from the New 

 Forest during the autumn." This is nearly but not (piite the truth. 

 In the report of the meeting {Ent. Record, vol. iv., p. 306) Mr. Turner 

 reports : — " Mr. Tutt remarked that he had seen specimens of a second 

 brood of A. papltia and had bred second broods of Vanefisa urticae, V. 

 atalanta, V. in and V. c-album." Now this very fairly states what I 

 did say, l)ut in a desiiltory conversation canned on across pai't of the 

 room and when I was busy talking with a friend, Mr. Frohawk asked 

 me where I had seen them and I immediately told him "at a recent 

 City of London uieeting," and in answer to another query I remarked 

 that they might have been, or most probably were, Mr. Clark's. This is 

 all I rememlier. Some small specimens of .1. paphia were exhibited 

 and these were in some way connected with remarks about a second 

 brood. Mr. Frohawk seeks to bind me down to an oif-hand statement 

 that was only given as such and simply as an attempt to give a courteous 

 reply to a (question qn which I had given l)ut a passing thought, and 

 which to me has no real scientific value. To be the first to bi'eed 

 an odd autumnal specimen seems to be quite an important scientific 

 feat. Well ! So be it ! Mr. Frohawk should not leave his " painting " 

 for " mud throwing " as it does not add eclat to his artistic powers, nor 

 should he set himself up as an authority on my statements or on my 

 jDOwer of eyesight. — J. W. Tutt. [Since the above was in type, the 

 specimens shown to Mr. Frohawk by Mr. Clark have Ijeen exhibited at 

 the City of London Entomological Society's meeting, and it appears 

 that he really did see the green-tinted specimens. Owing to Mr. Fro- 

 hawk's serious statements a vote (as to whether the males showed a 

 green tint or not) was taken. As tlae vote was unanimous against Mr. 

 Frohawk, perhaps it will b(> more charital)le to say that Mr. P^-ohawk 

 Avould not see what ever}^ one else can see. 'J'hough why ? — Eu.J 



VARi.vnoN IN Irish Lepiuoptkra. — The following are the only 

 noticeable variations which I have met with here : — Pieris brassicae, J 

 of spring lirood very large ; P. rapae, 4 $ of a yellow tint ; P. napi, 

 some (J s spotless, some Js very dark; Coenoni/mpha pamphilns, some 

 almost spotless ; Hepialm relleda var. carnnn and intermediates ; Thya- 

 ti/ra baiiK, 3 sjiecimens with tlie s])ots ]>rown instead of rosy, the t3'pe 

 also occurs here ; Xylophat^ia pulyudon, some quite black, others as 



