166 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



Noct., i., p. 49, is anything to do with neurica, Schmidt, is too hopeless 

 for words. I knew nothing of neurica, Schmidt, Neurica, Tutt, Brit. 

 Noct., i., p. 67, refers distinctly to neurica, Hb., that is, to our British 

 species, and as such it must be understood. In my opinion we have 

 only one British species = 



Neurica, Hb., "Eur. Schmett.," fig. 381; Tutt, "Brit. Noct.," i., p. 57. 

 Arunduieta, Schmidt, " Stett. Ent. Ztg.," p. 369 (1858), etc. 



It did, of course, occur to me, when I previously discussed the 

 matter {British Noctuae, iv., pp. 101 et seq.) that Schmidt was refer- 

 ring an insect with (1) three white dots in the black, central streak 

 of the forewing, (2) a white collar, and (3) with plain underside, to 

 Hiibner's fig. 381. These characters had just then been evolved by 

 Schmidt, but, and this is important, they are not in Hiibner's figure, 

 nor did Hiibner know anything about them. They are the off- 

 spring of later accumulations around the name neurica, and, on 

 Schmidt's statement that "the size, shape of the wings, and markings, 

 are almost the same in both," I was inclined to think it was merely 

 a variety, and I took it for granted that Schmidt had two forms 

 before him, riz. (1) one referable to Hiibner's fig. 381, into which he had 

 read these special characters. (2) Another form which he had named 

 arundineta, and which everyone agreed was our common $ form, and 

 included specifically the dark form disaoluta, Tr. On these groitnds 

 I had not the slightest doubt that these should be referred to our 

 species. It would appear now on Edelsten's showing, that 

 Schmidt, Staudinger, Piingeler, and other German entomologists 

 have a species that they have erroneously referred to Hiibner's fig. 

 381, and which does not in any of its tangible characters agree with 

 fig. 381. This species I do not know. All the while, however, we 

 speak of neurica, Hb., we must restrict ourselves to Hiibner's figure 

 and the characters that are presented by that figure, and not read 

 others into it that are not there. Hiibner's neurica must be, poor as 

 it is, referred to our neurica, with the pale-ringed, dark, lower part of 

 the reniform spot, and not to an insect with "three white dots in the 

 central shade," "with a white crest," and so on. Why German 

 entomologists have referred, and are referring {teste Edelsten), speci- 

 mens to neurica, Hb., that do not agree therewith, is a point I do 

 not pretend to be able to understand. 



If Schmidt's neurica be, as Edelsten submits, a distinct and 

 separate species, then it wants a name, and I would name it edehteni 

 on account of the excellent work which Mr. Edelsten has done in 

 attempting to prove it distinct and separate from our British species, 

 neurica, Hb. 



The following are the important historical items in the matter : — 

 1802. — (1) HtJBNER figured our species as neurica. 

 1816. — (2) OcHSENHEiMER writes nothing about the specie?. He catalogues 



neurica, Hb., only. 

 1818. — (3) HiJBNEE figured the dark aberration of neurica. 

 1825. — (4) Treitschke joined the forms figured by Hiibner together as we do, 



and objected to the supposition that the dark forms were not 



co-specific with the pale ones. 

 1858. — (5) Schmidt erroneously referred a white-collared, white-spotted upperside, 



non-spotted underside, form to neurica, Hb., and then renamed 



Hiibner's neurica and our British neurica, arundineta. 



