116 



with A. I'dipemhihr. Specimens of the vars. astrcifjali, italica and 

 maritima are also shown. 



Dr. E. A. Cockayne, F.E.S., contributed the following summary 

 of his remarks : — • 



" Without going into the vexed question of nomenclature it may 

 be stated that of our six-spotted burnets {A. hifipocrejddis and A. 

 fili}H>ndiil(i) there are early and late colonies, with dates of emer- 

 gence in May-June, and July-August respectively, but others 

 occur where the date of emergence is intermediate. The general 

 facies of members of these colonies varies considerably, but 

 there is nothing to support the view that early fiUpendiilif usually 

 have the sixth spot small and separated by a black line, or the 

 other features ascribed to hippocrejiidis, or that this form is confined 

 to the early specimens. 



" Some early colonies do produce a majority of small-spotted 

 specimens, others a majority of large-spotted specimens, such as 

 the Bundoran colony. But small-spotted specimens agreeing with 

 hipjiocrejiidis do occur not infrequently in some late colonies. 



" I have examined the genitalia from the mixed colonies shown 

 to-night, and from various other five- and six-spotted colonies, and 

 in every case find the five-spotted insects have the uncus bifid, but 

 blunt, whereas the six-spotted have a bifid uncus with long taper- 

 ing horns. Tutt's liippocre))idis, including a specimen with only a 

 few red scales on the underside of one forewing to represent its 

 sixth-spots, all show the bifid uncus of filipendiihe, but his five- 

 spotted burnet shows the uncus of trifolii. None showed an uncus 

 with intermediate structure. 



" This confirms Bateson's results, which Tutt quotes in his 

 "British Lepidoptera," vol. i., pp. 420 and 544, and those of 

 Buchanan-White and Pierce, but in spite of it Tutt regarded his 

 hippocrepidis as nearer trifolii than filipendula:. He says that he 

 has observed trifulii fail while hippocrepidis increased proportionately 

 on the same ground, and regards this as a support to his view, 

 which is based on observations in the field. 



" In his cabinet he says hippocrepidis is structurally nearer trifolii 

 than filipendula', though he avoids this curious error in his book. 



" It is clear that these two species are absolutely distinct, and 

 that hybridization in nature cannot be common, and does not 

 account for the specimens intermediate in appearance between 

 trifolii and ftlipenduhr, such being indistinguishable from jilipen- 

 dulcc in genital armature. 



