8 THK F.NTOMOLOGISt's RECORD. 



mediate in tint between typical IJ. rapsojtliila and D. carpopJuti/a. 

 Mr. Elliott, of Roxburgh, N.I)., also captured larvi^ which produced 

 similar intermediate specimens. The larvte, too, Mr. Barrett averred 

 were practically alike, and they had the same food plants. 



With regard to this point, Mr. Tutt called attention to the following 

 facts : — That in the Cooke cabinet, in the Liverpool Museum, were 

 specimens almost identical with the intermediate specimens exhibited 

 by Mr. Barrett. That taking into account the distribution of 

 D. capsitphila, it was remarkable, if it were only a form of D.carixijiJiafia, 

 that it should l)e so permanent in its characters from the Pyrenees to 

 its most northerly range ; further, that from undoubted larviP of 

 capsDiihila no specimens of carpiijihai/a were ever bred ; that it 

 appeared to him that the doubtful specimens presented rather a condi- 

 tion of parallel colour variation than of specific unity ; and also that, 

 in a matter of doubt, it was infinitely better to retain two so abundantly 

 distinct forms as separate species until their specific identity was 

 proved beyond doubt, than to unite them on what is usually considered 

 a very weak character — that of colour. 



Disbelief in the authenticity of British D. compta. — Mr. Barrett 

 stated that the right of J>. compta to be considered British rested on 

 three facts : (1) The fact that it was a reputed British species. 

 (2) The presence of two specimens in the Dublin Museum, said to 

 have been captured by Mr. Tardy in Ireland. (3) The reputed capture 

 of specimens by Mr. Meek at Howth. With regard to the species 

 being among the " reputed " British species, Mr. Barrett pointed out 

 that the compta of the old authors was undoubtedly our connpcrsa. 

 As to Mr. Tardy's specimens, he considered that there was no proof 

 either for or against, except the fact that the specimens were in 

 existence, and that other reputed captures by Mr. Tardy led him to 

 think some mistake might have been made. He had no hesitation in 

 refusing the Howth specimens a ]^)ritish origin, and he read a letter from 

 the late ^Ir. H. Doubleday to himself, written at the time of the reputed 

 captures, in which it was stated that " one of the so-called Howth 

 specimens had been sent to him, that it was undoubtedly a re-set 

 specimen, the pin being gunnned, and that on being put into a damp 

 box it returned very quickly to the original Continental setting." He also 

 added that the "food of IK comjita did not grow wild at Howth, nor, in 

 fact, in Ireland." He also referred to the fact that Mr. Gregson, whom 

 ]\Ir. Meek stated to have likewise captured a compta at Howth, imme- 

 diately denied the suggestion, and stated that the insect he did capture 

 was a var. of /-'. conspcrsa, and that he did not believe that 7>. compta 

 occurred at all at Howth. 



Mr. South thought there was more evidence in favour of consider- 

 ing I), comjita British than Mr. Barrett had adduced, for when visiting 

 Canterbury on one occasion, some years ago, he called on Mr. Parry 

 and obtained a specimen of 1>. compta, which Mr. Parry had taken 

 with, and supposed to be an aberration of, I >. cii>ispcrt<a. He now liad 

 the specimen in his collection. 



Mr. Tutt agreed entirely with Mr. Barrett. So convinced was lie 

 of the want of evidence that J>. antijita had any claim to be considered 

 British, that when he worked out this group some few years since he 

 did not even include the species in his work on the Noctuides. He had 

 also stated in that work that the IK compta of the old British authors was 



