328 THE entomologist's record. 



caitiqua," appearing in your issue of the 15th inst., I may state that, on 

 July 24th, I took in our garden at Upper Clapton, upon a twig of aspen, 

 a larva much larger and much paler than any (). antiqna that I had before 

 taken, and the lateral tuft was also absent. It spun up on the follow- 

 ing day, and, on August 3rd, a female emerged. On August 6th I took 

 another on the trunk of the aspen-tree, and this one also spun up on 

 the following day, so I had no opportunity of comparing them with 

 any authentic work. This one pupated, but was parasitised by a 

 Dipteron. The pupae were much larger and conspicuously broader than 

 those of any (>. antiqna that I have before bred. I also took a similar 

 pupa from the bark of the same tree, but unfortunately injured it. As 

 I had a male 0. antiqna emerge on August 5th, I put it with the 

 female, and it mated at once. I have several eggs, and should I be 

 successful in obtaining any larvae therefrom without the lateral tufts, 

 I will report on the matter. — Edward Harris, F.E.S., 2, Chardmore 

 Road, Upper Clapton, N. October 31.s«, 1904. 



Note on Aplecta nebulosa ab. robsoni, Collins. — I was pleased 

 to see your note supporting the claim of Aplecta. nehidosa ab. robaoni, 

 also Mr. Porritt's protest against Mr. Arkle renaming this fine melanic 

 form. Mr. Arkle asked me in June last for information about my type 

 of robaoni, but I must confess I took no steps to prevent him renaming 

 the aberration. At the Lancashire and Cheshire Society's exhibition 

 in October, 1903, no fewer than five lepidopterists (Messrs. Crabtree, 

 Johnson, Tait, Wallington, and myself) exhibited melanic specimens 

 of this species, slightly variable in the matter of fringes — grey to 

 ochreous-white — all of which were included by the exhibitors, and I 

 think rightly, under the term robnoni. The present year appears to 

 have been a specially good one for them, some twenty examples being 

 then exhibited. There is, of course, a slight difference between grey- 

 and ochreous-fringed specimens, but surely not sufficient to warrant 

 naming them, and it does not seem wise to rename as new an aberra- 

 tion that had been already worked up a dozen years ago. It is most 

 unfortunate that, when the form was named, the full description of 

 the insect, as read at the meeting of the Lancashire and Cheshire 

 Society, on October 12th, 1891, wss not published. The paper that I 

 then read recited how Acton and myself had taken the larvae in Dela- 

 mere Forest, that both of us had bred melanic specimens, the percentage 

 of the melanic forms, &c. The five specimens exhibited and dealt with 

 were not exactly alike, as they varied in intensity, one example showing 

 the stigmata distinctly greyish -white, whilst those of the others were 

 more obscured, and merged into the blackish ground colour ; I also 

 made an important point of the fringes, which I noted as "pale greyish- 

 white." The description I read was as follows: " Anterior wings — 

 ground colour rich black, orbicular and reniform stigmata greyish, in 

 some specimens more or less obscured and merging into the blackish 

 ground colour; a grey shade preceding the subterminal line ; a series of 

 three white dots on the costa; fringes pale greyish- white. Posterior wings 

 — dark grey, lunule imperceptible. Head, thorax, and body somewhat 

 of the tint of the hindwings, dark grey in colour ; the thoracic lobes 

 pale grey." I further noted the minor variation of the specimens, and 

 that, whilst four of my examples had pale greyish- white fringes, the 

 other specimens had them also white-margined. — Joseph Collins, 10, 

 Pierpont Street, Warrington. November 10th, 1904. 



