NOTES ON LUPERINA GUENEEI. 77 



and that the type male* shows no white spots or dots in such a 

 position with the exception of the three just mentioned, one is 

 forced to the conclusion that Doubleday only noticed the two 

 posterior dots, and did not realize that they correspond exactly 

 to the two outer dots of the series of three that he knew so well 

 in testacea. 



Mr. South (torn, cit., p. 292) says that the question whether 

 L. nickerlii is, or is not, a form of testacea must await the result 

 of further examination of the genitalia. But while fully reahzing 

 the immense value of the evidence afforded, in numerous in- 

 stances, by these appendages, I am quite unable to subscribe to 

 the idea that any two forms that appear, on other grounds, to be 

 distinct species, must be considered conspecific unless the geni- 

 talia show marked differences. The eight specimens of nickerlii 

 in the National European Collection differ so noticeably from 

 testacea in the ground-colour, which is much darker, in the 

 stigmata, which are white and consequently far more con- 

 spicuous, and in the hind wings, which are, like those of gueneei, 

 decidedly whiter, that its specific status seems to me in no way 

 jeopardised by the possibility of the genitalia yielding no proof 

 of its distinctness. 



I greatly regret to find that the explanation at the foot of the 

 plate accompanying Mr. South's paper in Entom., xlii., pp. 

 289-292 (1909) is incomplete, and consequently very mis- 

 leading. It tells us that the figures represent " Luperina nickerlii 

 and L. gueneei baxteri.'" This is true of the imagines figured, 

 but anyone, with the plate alone before him, could only conclude 

 that figure 5 shows the genitalia of nickerlii (this being the 

 species named first in the explanation), and that figure 6 

 represents those of gueneei var. haxteri. Both conclusions would 

 be erroneous, for, on turning to p. 292, we learn incidentally 

 that the appendages exhibited in figure 5 are those of the "new 

 species," while those seen in figure 6 belong to testacea! The 

 ** new species " of Mr. Pierce's report, written before he became 

 aware of the fact, is, of course, L. gueneei, Dbld. 



The opinion has been expressed to me that, in equally fresh 

 individuals, there would be no distinction at all between typical 

 gueneei and var. haxteri, South, and that the apparent difference 

 is merely due to the pale grey ground-colour having, in the course 

 of time, assumed a somewhat ochreous tinge. On first placing 

 fine examples of var. haxteri beside the type male of gueneei, 

 which, in its present condition, only differs from them in that it 

 is distinctly luteous instead of distinctly grey, this same idea 

 occurred to me, and I doubt whether anyone, with these indivi- 

 duals alone before him, would have ventured to bestow a varietal 

 name upon the former. A comparison, however, of var. haxteri 



■■' The point in question had not arisen when the opportunity of examining 

 the type female occurred. — E. R. B. 



