286 THE entomologist's record. 



aiitiimnaria certainly agreed with Doubleday's, and as Doubleday had 

 not described it, the name stands as autumnaria, Weav. 



1854. — Westwood figured autumnaria, Weav., as a good species, 

 in his supplement to Wood (fig. 1727). 



1855. — Stainton questioned the distinctness of autumnaria, Wear., 

 from dilutata [Ent. Ann., 1855, p. 41). 



1857. — Guenee, with greater approach to accuracy, sunk autum- 

 naria, Weav., as var. to nligrammaria. 



1858-9. — A controversy on the genus, carried on by Gregson, 

 Doubleday and Logan, appeared in the pages of the ZuolM/ist. Gregson 

 admitted five species, Doubleday (and probably Logan), two only. 



After this, Doubleday's second catalogue (1859) held sway to a 

 large extent, and most entomologists were content to follow it in 

 reducing the species to two. But in the >>cottish Xaturalist, vol. iv. 

 (1877-8), Dr. F. Buchanan White re-opened the question, and wrote 

 a most important article (pp. 111-116, with plate), urging the claims 

 of autumnaria, Weav., to specific rank, and re-naming it addendaria 

 [tom. cit., p. 160), to avoid collision with autumnata, Gn., which he 

 recognised as distinct. It is much to be regretted that this correction 

 of name has been lost sight of, as constant confusion results. One of 

 my best-informed correspondents was tripped up in this way, writing 

 me, in the course of some notes on Buchanan White's autumnaria 

 (addendaria) that " Guenee says the larvae is velvety green without 

 markings,"' which really applies to autumnata, Gn. 



I Avill now conclude with some further details of the claims of this 

 " addendaria,'' and of appro.vimaria, and would urge our northern 

 friends to obtain and freely distribute eggs of these forms, in order 

 that the early stages may be thoroughly worked out, side by side with 

 those of fditjrammaria. That addendaria is not a variety of nehulata 

 (dilutata), as once suggested by Stainton, and as Mr. Fenn seems now 

 to think, is conclusively proved by the J genitalia. 



(To be concluded). 



On the value of Larval Characters. 



By PEOFESSOR A. EADCLIFFE GROTE, M.A. 



The publication of Dr. Dyar's papers on the structural characters 



of Lepidopterous larvae, in the Entomolo^/ist's Record, allows me the 



opportunity of bringing the value of these characters in classification 



to issue. Dr. Dyar divides the SaturniaiUs into two main groups : — 



I. — A single dorsal tubercle on 9th abdominal segment. 



II. — No single tubercle on 9th abdominal segment. 



Under this arrangement J<ili<i becomes a member of the 

 Saturiiiadae, and the recognition of the fact that it really belongs to 

 the first series (I.) is lost sight of. The loss of the tubercle by Aijiia 

 is, in my opinion, secondary. It runs parallel to the loss of the 

 tubercles in the Saturniadae on various segments, and is not a 

 primary character by which a family can be naturally circumscribed, 

 in the same way, I believe that the presence of the dorsal tubercle in 

 certain North American Satur)iiadae (Hemileuca) points to the fact 

 that this tubercle was characteristic for the type from which the two 

 divisions I am inclined to recognise to-day have sprung. Hemileuca is 



