226 THE entomologist's recokd. 



Treitsclike diagnoses this species thus : " alis anticis flavo-cinereis, 

 nigro adspersis strigisque punctatis." Hiibner's figure, if representing a 

 known form of the species, must constitute : — 



a. var. hlanda, Hb. — More flesh-coloured in tone, transverse lines 

 less distinctly double. 



Caradrina taraxaci. — [Blanda, W. V.,p»'o })arte (1776)] : ? hlanda, 

 Fb., Mant., ii., p. 147 (1787): alsines, Brahm., pro jjarte (1791): 

 taraxaci, Hb., 575. 



As Hiibner was the first to make separate species of this and 

 the next, we accept his names taraxaci and alsines for them, and regard 

 his figures as the types. The type of taraxaci is of a rich darkish 

 brown (not at all ochreous), with the stigmata and the transverse lines 

 bordered with whitish ; I have one specimen from the Isle of Wight 

 that agrees fairly well with it, though very small. 



Tlie variation of this species is, as Mr. Tutt says, extremely difficult 

 to deal with, being really very considerable, yet not producing any 

 very strongly-defined varieties. The work of our early British authors 

 is almost useless, as they even start from a different form as type ; yet 

 it would hardly be right to ignore it entirely. When they depended 

 on such an unstable character as the form of the subterminal line, one 

 is compelled to disregard them ; but some of their names can be used, 

 after Tutt, as varietal appellations. Most of the extreme forms seem to 

 have been unknown to them, and they described only those which were 

 taken in gardens, woods, etc., round London. I will make such re- 

 marks as I can towards the elucidation of this matter, under the head 

 of the different varieties as catalogued by Mr. Tutt 



a. \{ir. sordida, Twit. — The ochreous form of taraxaci, near (dsines in 

 colour, though smoother in appearance, and without a distinct central 

 shade. Sordida, Haw., seems to me too likely to be a synonym of 

 alsines (as in Doubleday's and South's lists), to be safely cited here. 



(3. var. xanthographa, Haw.,= amhigua, Steph. : plantaginis. Humph, 

 and Westwd. — Kegarded by our older authorities as the type form of 

 this species. " Fuscescent " (Haw.), "greyish fuscescent " (Steph.); 

 otherwise Stephens co])ies Haworth's diagnosis verbatim, and I think 

 the name arnhigna should fall before xantltograplia, Haw. The stigmata 

 should be distinct ; the transverse lines not so. Many of the ordinary 

 Londou specimens belong here. 



y. var. redactn, Haw. — Authors are hopelessly at variance as to the 

 points in which this differs from the last, except that it is a trifle 

 smaller. I think, therefore, in order to avoid hair-si)litting distinctions, 

 this name should (after Curtis), be united with the preceding. " A 

 simple sub- variety of the preceding " (Tutt). 



S. var. hlanda, G!n.,= taraxaci, H.-S. — This is darker and more rosy 

 than Hiibner's type, and is without the whitish boundaries of the 

 transverse lines ; hind-wings frequently whiter than in the tj'pe. Mr. 

 Tutt points out that with us it is a coast form, and describes it carefully, 

 while Herrich-Schaeffer's figure (380), will also help in its determination. 



£ var. egens, Haw., =: alsines, Steph. — I have united vars. e and ^ 

 of Tutt, to denote the fuscescent form with distinct markings, including 

 a quite visible central shade. W'ood's figure, 198, does not fit well to 

 Stephens' description, and seems rather to unite with the other London 

 variety, xanthographa == amhigua. There isamisi)rint in Brit. Noct.,i., 

 p. 150, Ga ; " fuscous, with indistinct stigmata, Arc," should read " with 

 distinct stigmata, &c." 



