34 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
In the above remarks on the variation of N. yestiva, I have 
included the small moorland and mountain form, usually, and 
as I think, correctly, referred to conjlua, Treits. It has been 
stated that the fore wings of true conflua are narrower and more 
pointed than those of festiva; but, as I read Treitschke’s de- 
scription of this insect, I cannot find that the shape of the wings 
is mentioned by him, and I consider that his description of 
conflua applies very well to certain small forms of festiva in my 
own collection. There is much diversity in the length of the 
fore wings as compared with their width, both in Scotch and 
English specimens of N. festa. The fore .wing of some 
examples is in length barely twice the width, whilst in other 
specimens it is more than twice the width. Again, the apices 
are much rounder in some specimens than others, and in a few 
they may be termed pointed ; but these examples are not all of 
the small conflua form. Southern specimens vary in size from 
1j in. to1}in. Scotch mainland specimens range from 1 in. 
2 lines to 1 in. 5 lines, and Shetland from 1 in. 3 lines to 1 in. 
5 lines; but only one of my eighteen Shetland specimens is 
less than 1 in. 4 lines. It would seem therefore that this local 
form is fairly uniform in the matter of expanse. 
With reference to conflua, Treitschke himself says that his 
type was taken on the Reisengebirge ; these mountains are in 
the north of Bohemia, separating that country from Silesia. 
Duponchel, in the seventh volume of the ‘ Histoire Naturelle 
des Lepidopteres,’ &c., published in 1827 (the same year that 
Treitschke published his description of conflua in ‘Schmetterlinge 
von Kuropa,’ vol. vi. pt. 1), says that the insect in question was 
originally taken in Hungary in 1824, and that Treitschke sent 
it to Boisduval under the MS. name of Apamea conflua. At the 
time this insect came under his notice, no description or figure of 
it had been given to the entomological public ; so Duponchel 
figured and described it under the name of Noctua (Apamea) 
conflua, Treits. I have this figure before me, and some speci- 
mens from Aberdeen, which are certainly the same form, 
although not exactly identical in every particular. The following 
is a description of the figure :— 
Fore wings pale ochreous brown, the basal area limited by a 
transverse curved reddish-brown band; submarginal band, a 
spot before the orbicular, a larger one between the orbicular and 
reniform, also reddish brown; the reniform is of the ground 
colour, the orbicular is rather paler. Hind wings fuscous grey, 
with a broad darker hind marginal border. 
Duponchel says the insect is reddish grey; the stigmata 
almost effaced, and the space between them rust-colour; and 
this description fits the Aberdeen specimens referred to almost 
exactly. 
There is no great difficulty in separating typical conflua from 
