292 THE entomologist's record. 



ringed with pale, was arnndineta, Schmidt. I have now shown that 

 whatever Ochsenheimer may have thousrht about nenrica, Hb., he 

 published nothing, and that we cannot (for scientific purposes) deal 

 with a man's thoughts 90 (or even 9) years after his death. I have 

 also shown that Treitschke, even if he knew of edeUteni, combined it 

 with nenrica, and treated it as a variety thereof, certainly he never 

 suggested that the species he diagnosed was not nenrica, Hb. 



We have, therefore, a long series of authors — Hiibner (1802 and 

 1818), Treitschke (1825), Duponchel (1840), Boisduval (1840), Herrich- 

 Schilffer (1845), Guenee (1852), and Stainton (1857), all 'figuring or 

 describing an insect with dark reniform ringed with pale, complaining 

 of the general colouring, etc., of Hiibner's figure 381, but having no 

 doubt about the species. 



Then, in 1858, we have Schmidt referring our edehteni to nenrica, 

 Hb., with the statement (already quoted) : " I cannot coinpare Hiibner's 

 illustration for the present ; I have seen it but once, and only 

 remember to have recognised by it my first variety." This was the 

 first real actual statement on specimens that was ever made in 

 doubting that Hiibner's figure did not represent the pale-encircled dark- 

 reniform species, except the remark of Treitschke that Ochsenheimer 

 " considered Hiibner's fig. 381 to represent the unspotted-underside 

 form," an opinion that Ochsenheimer certainly never put into 

 words. The second statement in the same dire^.tion on actual 

 specimens came from Staudinger (Stett. Ent. Zeitg., xxx., p. 88) who 

 asserted, 53 years after Ochsenheimer's death, that " Ochsenheimer had 

 already correctly surmised the last-named [of (1) nenrica, Hb., 381, (2) 

 arundineta, Schmidt, (3) the dark variety of nenrica, Hb., figs. 659- 

 661] , to be another species, viz., arnndineta, Schmidt (see Ent. Tlec, 

 xix., p. 6Q), w^hich is just what it is. Staudinger further adds that 

 there was in Ochsenheimer's collection one " genuine nenrica, Hb., 

 fig. 381," and in Treitschke's collection was " one nenrica Hb., fig. 

 381," i.e., so far as we know until Schmidt obtained specimens — 

 two examples only of what Staudinger (following Schmidt) calls 

 "true nenrica,'' and which we now consider to be edehteni, although, 

 even till the present moment, these specimens, of which so much 

 has been made, appear never to have been described except as the 

 "unspotted-underside variety." 



The form with white collar, three white dots along central shade, 

 and unspotted underside, therefore, never had been named, until we 

 named it (Ent. Ilec, xx., p. 164). 



It would be possible to waste much time and space in discussing 

 probable meanings of many things written by entomologists (including 

 ourselves), but there are only two questions that entomologists need 

 ask who have to deal with the insects : — 



(1) Does Hiibner's fig. 381 represent an insect with dark reniform, 

 edged with pale { = arnndineta, Schmidt), or one with a white collar, 

 and three white dots along the centre of the wing { = edehteni, Tutt) ? 



(2) Can Treitschke's statement of what Ochsenheimer thought, or 

 can the insects Staudinger found 53 years later in Ochsenheimer's 

 collection have any scientific bearing on whether Hiibner's fig. 381 

 should be referred to an insect with a white collar and three white 

 spots along the centre of the wing (characters which it does not 

 possess), or to one with a dark reniform with pale circumscription 

 (which it does possess) ? 



