THK TKPHROSIA TANGLE. 79 



Pnu'iniaria, Fb. (Ent. Si/st., No. 66), is most probably synonymous 

 with histortata, Goetze, but, like stinilaria, Hfn., is an insufficiently 

 described species. Werneburg determines it for '^ crcpuftrularia,'' and 

 it would certainly be curious if Fabricius had not noticed this common 

 species at all. 



Borkhausen's hiundularia [1794] is prior to Esper's, for the 

 latter quotes the former. Mr. Barrett is no doubt right in concluding 

 that Borkhausen knew both species under the one name, but he omits 

 some evidence going to show that that author's ideas of the species were 

 chiefly based on our so-called crepuxculaiia (= histortata, Goetze = 

 No. 1). " Whitish-grey, more or less thickly brown dusted " is not 

 very definite, I admit, but I protest it is not quite fair to italicise the 

 " whitish," as Mr. Barrett has done. All the available evidence goes to 

 show that the less white species (No. 1), though not in the Avarm ochreous 

 colouring of our South British specimens, is the common Continental 

 form, and Guenee, who expressly distinguishes our May-June species 

 (No. 2) from his type, yet descriljes the type as " dirty white, strongly 

 powdered with reddish-brown." Further down, Borkhausen mentions 

 the "very white "specimens as a variety. His species is double-brooded ; 

 the first brood appearing very early, contemporaneously with Breplws 

 })artJienias and Asphalia flaricornis, the second brood in June and July ; 

 June would be rather early for the second brood with us, but a little 

 allowance may be made for latitude, etc., and Borkhausen obtained 

 these specimens bi/ hnnlinci from Mai/ larvae, so that our single- 

 brooded May-June species (from preriom seaxon's larvae) is not in the 

 question. 



Surely, then, the citation of hiundularia, Bork., to Guende's " var. 

 B. — hiundularia, Esp.," is erroneous, and hiundularia, Bork., is to be 

 regarded as synonymous with histortata, Goetze (= No. 1). 



Hiibner's fig. 158 {crepuxcularia) is, as Mr. Barrett says, the 

 May-June species, though it is a trifle more strongly brown-dusted 

 than some examples. As we have not yet found a name applicable 

 to this species, we discover — as Mr. Briggs will be pleased to learn — 

 that Stephens and Wood were quite right, and Doubleday's second 

 catalogue wrong, and that this species (No.2) is the true T. crepuscularia. 

 Doubleday's second catalogue was based on Guen6e ; and the explana- 

 tion of Guenee's separation of crepuscularia, Hb., from hiundularia, 

 Esp. (both really = No. 2) is that the latter is the more extreme 

 form, and probably the examples in Guenee's collection belonged to 

 that extreme form. Esper's plate 40 follows Hiibner's fig. 158 

 chronologically ; the exact date of both is uncertain, but as Esper 

 cites Hiibner's figure, the order of priority is beyond question. 

 Esper's <? figure (PI. 40, fig. 3), as I have just said, represents 

 Guenee's idea of our Epping Forest species (No. 2), with but slight 

 dark dusting, and strong black transverse lines and marginal dots. I am 

 puzzled that Mr. Barrett has said, "his female figure is one upon 

 which no one, I think, would like to pronounce." This figure (PI. 40, 

 fig. 4), though badly coloured, or a singular form, is far better than 

 some of Esper's, and is of a decided brown colour, and most certainly 

 the banded spring form of the double-brooded species (No. 1). Thus 

 Esper, like nearly all Continental authors, unites the two species. 



Duponchel's crepuscularia is certainly, both from his description 

 and from his very satisfactory figures (PI. 158, fig. 8), the browner, 



