GOL} 
XXI. On the British (and a few Continental) species 
of Scoparia, Hw. By T. A. Cuapman, M.D., 
F.ZS. 
[Read March 15, 1911.] 
Pirates XXXV—XLIV. 
THE suggestion to examine the British Scoparias came 
from Mr. EK. R. Bankes. Though the opinions as to what 
are and are not distinct forms held by Mr. Bankes are, I 
believe, those accepted by the few other English entomo- 
logists that know the genus, and are practically identical 
with those I arrive at, they differ from those of any of the 
systematic works I have examined. The necessity for 
some such investigation as that here presented is therefore 
obvious. 
Barrett (“ Lepidoptera of the British Islands,” 1904) 
differs from Meyrick (Handbook, 1895), who appears to 
be simply copied by Hampson (Trans. Ent. Soc., 1897). 
Staudinger (Cat., 1901) differs from all these, and seems to 
be simply copied by Spuler (Hofmann’s “ Schmetterlinge,” 
1910); nor do any of these agree with what appear to be 
the true facts. Barrett makes one species too many. 
Meyrick is certainly most in error as, with the greater 
pretensions to a scientific position, he lumps three species 
together, and has apparently led astray Hampson, 
Staudinger, and Spuler. 
The different views held by all these authorities have 
reference almost entirely to the group indicated by the 
four names basistrigalis, ambigualis, atomalis, and ulmella. 
In examining the male appendages to throw light on 
this matter, it was obvious that’ to examine these species 
alone was by no means sufficient; an examination must 
also be made of a number of other species so as to obtain 
some idea of what were specific characters of value. I 
therefore determined to examine all the British species 
and as many Kuropean species as could be readily obtained. 
T do not think the Continental magazines show anything 
of importance on the question of the value of the specific 
distinctions claimed to exist between these four forms; 
TRANS, ENT. SOC. LOND. 1911.—PART I, (JAN.) LL 
