A NOTE ON NONAGRIA NEURICA, HB. 167 



1869. — (6) More than half a century after Ochsenheimer's death, Staudinger 

 says there was in Ochsenheimer's collection (1) a true neurica, Hb. 

 {i.e., we take it the species with the black reniform dot encircled 

 with white), labelled " neurica, Hb.," in Ochsenheimer's hand- 

 writing ; (2) a typical arimdineta, Schmidt, which Ochsenheimer 

 had labelled " Noctua dissoliita " (although Ochsenheimer had died 

 years before Treitschke's name appeared), but queried as "an 

 eadem cum praecedente? " which it must have been if the first 

 represented neurica, Hb., whilst Staudinger noted of Treitschke's 

 examples: "1 is neurica, Hb., 381, 2, 3, and 4 are arundineta, 

 Schmidt, and 5 is the dark form of neurica, Hb., figs. 059-661 = 

 disfohtta, Tr., and subsequently hessii, Bdv.," all three of which 

 Treitschke considered as one species, as we do. Staudinger, then, 

 refers to one of Ochsenheimer's specimens as " a true neurica, Hb., 

 fig. 381," and to one of Treitschke's as '' neurica, Hb., Hg. 381," 

 and to another as the " dark form of neurica, Hb., figs. 659-661," 

 which is logical enough ; this same " dark form of neurica, Hb., 

 figs. 659-661," he recognises, was named dissoluta, by Treitschke, 

 and yet he later affirms that it must be " retained only for the dark 

 form of arundineta, Schmidt,' i.e., Hubner's figs. 659-661 are : — 



(1) A dark var. of neurica. 



(2) A dark form of arundineta. 



Therefore, according to Euclid, neurica = arundineta. [This is what 

 Staudinger says, what he meant to say, I do not know. What he 

 thought was clear, viz., that there were two species mixed up which 

 "his friend, Schmidt, so well distinguished." All this argument 

 of Staudinger's leads nowhere, and is beside the question — neither 

 Ochsenheimer, nor Treitschke, dealt with two species — Schmidt 

 did. Therefore it is to Schmidt we come, and it is clear that 

 Staudinger's attempt to deal with the matter was to support Schmidt 

 in the establishment of a new species, which he had to sell, and 

 which was on the market at the time. Personally, he only knew 

 what Schmidt told him, and what he could see from the specimens 

 he had from various places. This we can do just as well to-day, 

 100 years after Hubner's death, as he could 50 years after, rather 

 better, perhaps, as present-day collections are larger.] 



1888-1891. — (7) TuTT, basing his opinions largely on British material and the 

 original descriptions and figures, concluded that Hubner's neurica, 

 Hb., figs. 381, 659-661, and Schmidt's irundineta are I'eferable to 

 one species, viz., the one we get in Britain. He only deals with 

 neurica, Schmidt, so far as Schmidt himself says, that neurica, 

 Schmidt = 'iei(rjc«, Hb. 



1907. — (8) Edelsten. The conclusions formulated turn entirely on Schmidt's 

 insects, and the insects that the German collectors are now selling 

 as referable to Schmidt's. If Edelsten's diagnoses of the two forms 

 are right, then it is clear that Schmidt was wrong in referring 

 neurica, Hb., 381, to his new species, " without any marks on 

 underside," " with three white dots along median line of wing," 

 "with white collar." [I do not personally know Schmidt's insect 

 (except teste Edelsten, who showed me one he vouches is referable 

 thereto), Edelsten does; therefore, I take it, Edelsten's conclusions, 

 following those of Schmidt, give us two allied species, of which we 

 only get one in England, viz., neurica, Hh. =arundineta, Schmidt. 

 We cannot have two " neuricas " in the same genus, hence I 

 name the more recently-named one edelstejii.] 



Note on Nonagria neurica, Hb. 



By H. M. EDELSTEN, F.E.S. 

 Mr. Tutt kindly sent me his manuscript of the above so as to give 

 me an opportunity of replying to his criticism of my previous notes on 

 the subject. I do not think it is worth while entering into a con- 

 troversy over this matter, and I am quite satisfied that my previous 

 remarks are correct. However, the point is this : Mr. Tutt says 



