82 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



more than a local form of L. complana ; the larvae are practically 

 identical." * 



Mr. Barrett dismisses it as follows : " These Lancashire 

 specimens were at one time supposed to form a distinct species, 

 described under the names of L. molyhdeola, Guenee, and L. 

 sericea, Gregson, but no line of distinction appears to exist." 



Finally, in the ' Record,' Mr. Prout protests against Mr. Tutt 

 recording sericea as a var. of complana ; he says : " So long ago 

 as 1867 Speyer pointed out structural differences, not only in the 

 shape of the wings, but also in the size of the costal tuft of 

 scales on the under side of the fore wings, not to mention its 

 colour, &c. Until his observations have been seriously chal- 

 lenged, and the characters in question proved inconstant, it 

 seems to me quite unjustifiable to sink sericea as a variety." 



To this Mr. Tutt replied :— 



"It has always been one of the greatest puzzles to me why 

 Lithosia sericea should ever have been considered distinct from 

 complana. To those who know complana over a fair part of its 

 area of distribution there is no need to enter into details of the 

 great difference in size, and to a less extent in wing-shape, due 

 probably to a somewhat fuller development accompanying the 

 larger size that exists in specimens of this species from various 

 localities. Added to this, one finds, as a rare aberration, occa- 

 sional specimens of complana in Kent, with the superficial ap- 

 pearance of sericea very strongly developed. With regard to 

 Speyer's differentiation of the size of the costal tuft of scales 

 I know nothing, nor have I at present time to investigate ; but 

 the thought arises whether this is more than a slight specializa- 

 tion due to the same conditions of environment that have pro- 

 duced what to me seems nothing more than a well-marked local 

 race of a very widely distributed species. Cannot a parallel 

 examination of eggs and larvae, both obtainable in Britain, be 

 made for specific differences, if these exist '? Is not the material 

 available for a comparison of the genitalia ? At present I am a 

 sceptic as to the specific claims of sericea, but my scepticism 

 perhaps is based on very insufficient grounds. There is, I 

 believe, in the Ent. Weekly Intelligencer, a trenchant criticism 

 of Speyer's remarks by one of the Lancashire collectors, who 

 took the insect freely on the mosses in the fifties." 



It is interesting to note that Prout says Speyer pointed out 

 the differences in 1867, whereas Tutt says there is a criticism of 

 this in the ' Intelligencer,' the last volume of which was pub- 

 lished in 1861, so that the criticism was given six years before 

 the gentlemen wrote the article — which shows the cleverness of 

 the old Lancashire collectors ! 



''; Meyrick is quite unreliable: he puts Ojiorahia autumnata, filigram- 

 •inaria, and dilidata together as one species, also Cidaria russata and iin- 

 manatxi, whose times of appearance, hybernation of pupa, &c., and structure 

 of genitalia, must entitle them to be considered separate species. — F. N. P. 



