NOTES ON THE VARIATION OF PERONEA CRISTANA, FAB, 269 



There are three examples in the Webb series, two of which 

 are mounted on the old round-headed pins, and thus they almost 

 certainly date back to before 1850, or to the period in which 

 Desvignes wrote his paper (1845). The red in these examples 

 is distinctly less bright than in the very beautiful type, which 

 was taken in Folkestone Warren in 1898 by Mr. Purdey. 



One of these specimens was labelled by Webb "Dr. Mason's 

 Colin.," and in the catalogue of Mason's sale what is almost 

 certainly this specimen is named ab. curtisana. This sale was 

 held in 1905, and as Clark's paper was written in 1901, Mason, 

 who had adopted Clark's names, evidently did not identify his 

 specimen as charlottana, Clark ; and if he had, as is most 

 probable, not seen the actual type and judged by the figure, 

 there is no reason why he should have done so. I think in 

 naming his specimen curtisana he was correct, that the two forms 

 are one, and that cliarlottana, Clark, should fall before curtisana, 

 Dsvgs. It is not improbable that Mason's specimen was 

 Desvignes' type, but of course there is no means now of proving 

 this. Webb mentions that examples of curtisana are " lost to 

 ■knowledge unless charlottana be identified with it." Certainly I 

 have not seen one, though there is an example in the National 

 Collection which purports to be it ; this, however, is obviously 

 ab. tolana, Dsvgs. 



Fig. 19, ab. niqrana. The colour of this figure is very dark 

 brown. Clark's description does not mention any dark brown 

 tint, nor does his type show any ; it has only different depths of 

 pure black. 



I will now deal with some further points in Webb's paper 

 {loc. cit.) which require correction. 



On p. 267, vol. xliii, he writes of ab. rufinigrana, Clark : " A 

 distinction without a difference "' (from nigrana). " Of this form 

 Clark remarks {loc. cit.), the chocolate-coloured margin which 

 is totally absent in nigrana constitutes the difference. Possess- 

 ing both the type (quite unlike the figure) and his series we are 

 forced to say there is no chocolate line whatever as described." 

 " The name rufinigrana, as one of non-importance, should be 

 dropped altogether." This is one of the most erring statements 

 in Webb's paper. Ab. rufinigrana, and Clark's type of it, is an 

 exceedingly distinct form, and it was only Webb's defective eye- 

 sight that led him into the error. As I have pointed out in my 

 paper [loc. cit.), it is a dark purple-brown form and has no 

 resemblance to the pure black ab. nigrana. 



Abs. nigrocostana, Clark (not nigroruficostana, as written 

 by Webb — Clark never used this name), and albonigrana, Clark. 

 Webb's incorrect remark that these figures appear to have 

 been transposed arose through his getting hold of a reprint of 

 Clark's paper, in all or some copies of which I am informed the 

 figures actually were transposed. In the original figure (' Ent. 



