The gradations in different specimens are so regular as to prove, 

 in my opinion, beyond doubt, that our insect is only a local form o£ 

 the widely distributed mountain-frequenting metallicana. This well- 

 marked form is rather pretty, the markings, which are brownish-grey, 

 consisting of a large basal blotch with sinuated margin, a central 

 fascia with straight margins and nearly of a triangular shape, and 

 another fascia in the form of a slender triangle across the apex. 

 Hiibner's figure 68 is sufficiently accurate, and was published thirty 

 years before Curtis's name alternana — if even he had correctly de- 

 scribed the species,^ — ^and Hiibner's name, metallicana, must evidently 

 be adopted for our insect. As already noted (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. xi, 

 p. 59), the name Daleana, still so commonly used in our collections, 

 has really no foundation at all. 



AntiiJiesia fuliffana, Hiib., ustulana, Haw. — When the specimens 

 formerly noticed (vol. ix, p. 129) were reared from stems of StacJiys 

 palustris from Wicken Pen, the idea suggested itself that, from 

 their shape, they must be distinct from the form found among Stachys 

 sylvatica at the edges of woods and elsewhere in the south of England ; 

 but this view, in deference, I think, to the opinion of my friend Mr. 

 Doubleday, was at that time suppressed. It has asserted itself from 

 time to time since, and lately has been strongly urged upon me by 

 Mr. Warren, who had personal acquaintance with the form found in 

 the fens, and was much struck by the difference in shape of the fore- 

 wings when he saw a fine series of the other taken in the London 

 district. Still more recently, when engaged in examination of the 

 structure of the genital sheaths of the males, I found conclusive 

 structural evidence of their distinctness, and even of their belonging 

 in this respect to different groups in the genus Antiihesia. 



Thus it has become necessary to ascertain to which of these 

 species the name fuligana really belongs, and with the help of my 

 kind friend Mr. Stainton, and his valuable library, I think I have 

 worked this question out. 



Hiibner's figure 109 (fuligana) is clearly a rather large repre- 

 sentation of our southern species (from Stachys sylvatica), as also is 

 Herrich-Schaffer's figure under the same name, and for this species 

 the name must be retained. Ustulana, Haw., is certainly the same 

 species. He describes it : — 



Anterior-wings obtuse, obscure smoky, with base broadly black or deep black, 

 scorched, with large, straight, obscure middle fascia, extreme hind-margin and cilia 

 scorched black. Costa with two beautiful orange spots. Between the middle fascia 



