102 THE entomologist's record. 



have made a break in the continuity of Marshall's labours, the import- 

 ance of which cannot be overestimated. In conclusion, we hope 

 Mr. Cameron will continue his lists, and propose that he give more 

 information with those of the later groups. 



Eupithecia tamarisciata as a British insect. 



By J. W. TUTT, F.E.S. 



In the Ent. Rec, xviii., pp. 157-8, I wrote a note on a puzzling- 

 group of Eupitheciids, explaining my unbounded ignorance ; the 

 latter may, however, be assumed as real knowledge in comparison 

 with what most entomologists seem to know. This was followed up 

 by a note on the state of ignorance on this subject in Germany by 

 Mr. ])add {op. cit., pp. 269-260), and a further critique on this com- 

 munication by mj'self (p. 260). In The KnUnir., xl., pp. 206 et seq. 

 Mr. Prout took on the manipulation of the search-light, and has con- 

 tinued operating until during the present month he has put out the 

 lamp (E7it., xli., pp. 62-53) and left those who have followed up the 

 matter in an obscurity resembling that of one of the plagues with 

 which the poor Egyptians were once worried. Out of it all comes the 

 fact that we are exactly where we were and that our ignorance on this 

 matter is profound. 



It takes little time for even straightforward facts to be so upset 

 that one hardly recognises them. Such a vast time ago as June 15th, 

 1906, I wrote :— 



" It is a remarkable coincidence that, just after I liad prepared this note for 

 pubUcation, I met, at the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, Mr. Holmes, 

 of Sevenoaks, who had two specimens of an Phipithecia bred, amongst several 

 others, by his wife, from larvae taken in Cornwall last year on tamarisk, and which 

 one had little difficulty in referring to E. Unnavixciata , a form, or species, not 

 hitherto recorded from Britain. It behoves British entomologists, therefore, to 

 bestir themselves, and prove or disprove the specific identity of these insects. 

 In our opinion we have here three British species, whilst Staudinger's Catalog 

 suggests that they are but one, as shown by the synonymy quoted." 



Mr, Prout now says that " Mr. Holmes " bred them, and that this 

 note of mine was " premature." 



Again on August 15th, 1906, I wrote : — 



" Mr. Dadd thinks that the onus rests on British entomologists to disentangle 

 the muddle made in Germany. British entomologisfs do not unite fraxinata and 

 taniarisciata as vars. of innotata, they treat them as distinct species. We can 

 prove, as far as their biology in Britain permits, their distinctness, it is for the 

 German entomologists to prove their biologic unity. If there is not more ' evidence ' 

 than Herr Herz offers, and the remarkable statement of Staudinger that a 

 species that emerges in June is the summer brood of a species that hybernates 

 from September to May, and is only just (or not quite) over when the so-called 

 summer brood appears, I am afraid we cannot get much further by means of the 

 help of our continental colleagues. Our own evidence is not too illuminating or 

 too abundant, but it shines as a sun compared with the haze that Mr. Dadd 

 quotes from our friend Herr Herz." 



Now Mr. Prout has discussed the question and some of the clearness 

 of the first part of his argument has been unfortunately clouded by the 

 uncertainties he notices in the second, and one asks " Where are we now 

 that we were not before? Mr. Prout's quotation [Ent., xli., p. 52) from 

 poor Robson is, if one may be permitted to say so, characteristic of 



