THE GENUS CAUAOIUNA, El (J. 199 



Guenoe (Noctuelites, etc., vol. v., 185lJ) arranges the species some- 

 wliat differentl}', morphcns I)eing transferred to the taraxaci group; 

 qnddripnncfdta is thus the only one of our British species that is left 

 separate from the rest, thougli, of course, in company with a number 

 of its continental allies, such as selini, Boisd. ; kadenii, Frr., &c., &c. 

 His unreasonable separation of Laphi/i/ma exigua from the region of 

 qnadripunciata has not been followed by Staudinger; and, though it is 

 found in Soutli's Entomoloijist Synonymic List, it is worthy of notice 

 that Guenee himself rectified his mistake in a letter to Millifere 

 (published by the latter in his Icono<jraphie, vol. iii., p. 293) in which 

 he says that since 1867 he has made ac(|uaintance with the larva of 

 quadri punctata, and that it belongs rather to Laphygma than to 

 Caradrina. 



My first impression, when I began to study this genus, was that it 

 contained two sub-genera — one containing rnorphem and quadri- 

 punctata ; the other, the taraxaci group — and I still think, from the 

 structure of the genitalia, antennae, &c., that the two first-named 

 species are nearer to one another than either of them is to the other 

 group, and that Treitschke was therefore not far out in his classifica- 

 tion. But morpheus has really no very close allies, and I think the 

 best course to adopt would be to sub-divide twice thus : — 1 (A) 

 qnadripunctata and its allies ; 1 (B) vwrpheus ; 2 super stes, taraxaci, 

 alsines, ambigua. I may say here that Mr. F. N. Pierce, who is 

 specially studying the genitalia of the Noci'Uje, and who has again 

 most kindly given me his help in this direction, considers that the 

 genitalic differences are here of full generic value. Should qnad- 

 ripunctata prove to be, as Guene'e suggests, congeneric with exigua, 

 that group may ultimately have to be removed to Lapkygina. 



Concerning the early stages, I am not really competent to speak ; I 

 have reared taraxaci from egg to imago, qnadripunctata from larvte, and 

 am also acquainted with the larva of morpheus ; all the species of the 

 taraxaci group are very closely allied as regards the appearance of the 

 larvae, food-plants, habits, &c., and all hybernate when but partially 

 grown ; morpheus and qnadripunctata differ widely from them in 

 superficial view (and also, I must admit, from one another) but Ijoth 

 hybernate full-fed in the cocoon in which they pupate in early spring. 

 From the differences in the early stages and also in the position in 

 which the wings are held when at rest, Werneburg in ISo-i (Berichte 

 des Lepidopterologischen Tanschvereines, p. 145) suggested that qnad- 

 ripunctata did not belong in the same genus with alsines, aiubigua, &c. ; 

 but no serious attempt has yet been made to separate it ; nor shall I 

 venture to do more than I have already proposed — i.e., to follow 

 Treitschke in placing it and morpheus in a different section of the 

 genus from the others — until much more accurate observations and 

 studies of the early stages have been undertaken. 



The differentiation of the species in the taraxaci group is no 

 easy matter, and I think it will be better in the first place to consider 

 these species together, and, in doing so, to take tlie opportunity to 

 establish the claim of supersies to a place in the British list ; after which, 

 the variation of each species may be separately dealt with. 



It is not sur[)rising to find that there was continual confusion and 

 obscurity with regard to these species in the early days of the history 

 of nomenclature and classification. We can hardly rely upon any 



