164 THE ENTOMOLO(iIST's RECORD. 



One thiiifr is certain, the Conversazione has come to stay. 

 The programme of future ones should be elaborated in detail long 

 before the next takes place ; the details of time, place, cost of tickets, 

 etc., should be well-advertised in all the usual entomological magazines, 

 and there need be no uncertainty as to the actual success, a success 

 that does not end with the evening's entertainment and enjoyment, 

 but is carried on in the many happj' hours that will be spent by 

 newty-found friends over books and insects in those strangely secret 

 corners that are the surprise and envy of the world — the parlours and 

 libraries of the homes of Britain. 



A Note on Nonagria neurica, Hb. ( = neurlca, Tutt, "Brit. Noct.," 



i., p. 49) and Nonagria edelsteni, n.n. ( = neurica, Schmidt, 



and Edelsten, "Ent. Rec," xix., pp. 56=59.) 



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



Some 20 years ago {Ent. Mo. Maij., xxv., pp. 56-7) 1 wrote a note 

 concerning Nonai/ria neurica, Hb., a species in which, at the time, I 

 felt considerably interested, and which, of course, although dealing in 

 the main with the species we knew in Britain under this name, also 

 took into account the references to the species by Continental authors, 

 the references being based on the assumption that the insect they 

 referred to, neurica, Hb., agreed with his figure of the species. In 

 Brit. Noctuae and their Varieties, i., p. 49, I re-affirmed the position 

 that neurica, Hb., in spite of the faultiness of drawing, was referable 

 to our species, that the essential ocellation was particularly noticeable 

 in the lower part of the reniform, that the shape of the wings suggested 

 5 s which I had from Cambridge, although the abdomen of Hiibner's 

 figure suggested a <? . [The abdomen of many of Hiibner's figures are 

 more or less diagrammatic, and the point did not (and does not) 

 appear to me at all vital.] The essential note of my observation was 

 that, in Britain, we had only one species, and that, on Hiibner's figure, 

 our species w^as neurica. Of the other matter, whether there were two 

 species or not confused under the various names on the continent, I 

 was not directly concerned, but merely discussed the remarks of 

 Treitschke, Schmidt, and Staudinger, with regard to their references 

 to neurica, Hb., apart from their references to armulineta, Schmidt, all 

 being apparently referable to the species we get in Britain. 



Eecently Mr. Edelsten became interested in the matter, came to 

 the conclusion that there really were two species on the continent, and 

 referred them, as Schmidt and Staudinger had already done, to ««;/(r?'ca, 

 Hb., and dissoluta, Tr. (or rather arundincta, Schmidt), respectively. 

 He figured the species {Ent. Rec, xix., pi. ii., figs. 1-12), dealt with 

 certain differential points in their life-histories, and finally gave a 

 comparative tlible of the essential characters relied upon for the 

 distinction of the two species {E)it. Rec, xix., pp. 1-4, 33-87, 56-59). 



The imaginal characters on which the species are difterentiated 



by Edelsten {op. cit., p. 59) read as follows : — 



Neceica. I Ahundineta. 



Collar white. [ Collar same colour as body. 



Central streak blackish, containing i Central streak blackish, no white dots. 



three white dots, the outer one 

 forming the central spot. 

 Underside quite plain, with 



central spot black, encircled, or 

 partly so, with white. 

 Underside showing the central spots 



markings. 1 and marginal lunules. 



