168 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



Hiibner's fig. 381 is identical with our insect. This figure represents 

 a (J , of which Mr. Tutt made a description, which he compared with 

 2 specimens in his collection. (Mr. Tutt's specimens, which are 

 worn, are the ordinary Cambs. form.) Mr. Bowles and I compared 

 our specimens with Hiibner's illustration, and, though there was a 

 certain resemblance, we were convinced it was not meant to represent 

 our species, so I wrote to my friend Herr Piingeler, of Aachen, who 

 kindly sent me specimens of neurica, Hb., from Prof. Stange and 

 Schmidt, which are absolutely distinct from our species ; how then is 

 Mr. Tutt going to get over the fact that the continental entomologists 

 have accepted this species (which Mr. Tutt wants to name after me) 

 as neurica, Hb., fig. 881 ? Surely, considering that they get both 

 species, they should know which is most like Hiibner's illustration. 

 Mr. Tutt says the shape of the wings of Hiibner's figure suggest a $ , 

 Avhich I am afraid I do not agree with. We have bred our species 

 by the thousand from different localities, and it is "absolutely distinct " 

 from the other German insect ; the difference is much more noticeable 

 than even that between favicolor and pallens. I quite agree with Mr. 

 Tutt that we have only one species in this country. 



Postcript re Nonagria neurica, Hb. 



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



Mr. Edelsten is quite right. I believe also that his " previous 

 remarks are correct." I believe his conclusions re Hiibner, fig. 381, 

 are entirely wrong. I also do not wish to enter into a controversy, 

 but when one's published work is criticised one is supposed to meet the 

 criticism or judgment goes by default. In this case it would have 

 been a mistake not to have stated the other side. 



The rest of Mr. Edelsten's polite note begs the point at issue. 

 The question is not what he thought, but whether his description of 

 the insect he refers to neurica, Hb., agrees with Hiibner's fig. 381. 

 We show that Hiibner's figure presents none of the three characters 

 he relies on. 



Piingeler's specimens — from Stange and Schmidt — are no doubt 

 most interesting. As it was on these that Mr. Edelsten framed 

 his diagnosis, and as this diagnosis disagrees with Hiibner's fig. 381, 

 they may be held to settle that neurica, Schmidt, Stange, Piingeler, 

 Edelsten, is not neurica, Hb., but are edelsteni, Tutt. 



With regard to the conundrum re German entomologists, I should 

 say that they are as much like a flock of sheep as we are, and follow 

 " the man " of the time, and possibly, with two exceptions, had never 

 seen Hiibner's figure. Once Schmidt had referred something to 

 neurica, Hb., that Staudinger could sell, the German entomologists 

 followed the "types" they bought from Staudinger, and not Hiibner's 

 figure. A copy of Hiibner costs little short of £100, and is in general 

 use rather less perhaps in Germany than here. 



The shape of Hiibner's fig. 381 gives a triangular wing, so does $ 

 neurica, the <? is squarer (more To rtrix -like). 



It is quite possible that Nonagria neurica and A"", edelsteni differ as 

 much as Leucania favicolor and L. pallens, in fact, it appears clear on 

 Mr. Edelsten's showing that they do so. It is because of his facts 

 bearing this out that we rename one of the forms edelsteni. 



