IN THE BKITISH ISLANDS. 25 



D. ccvsia shows perhaps more than any other species, the difference 

 between some of our insular varieties and the ordinary form obtained 

 on the Continent. D. luteago var. barrettii (ante, vol. i., p. 135) should 

 be referred to this genus and not to Luperina. Mr. W. F. de V. Kane 

 in the < Ent. Kec.,' vol. ii., p. 275, writes : " I wholly dissent from 

 Mr. Buckler in assigning this species a place in the genus Luperina. 

 Mr. Tutt says (in. litt.), that ' however necessary a Dianthcecia facies 

 may be for protection etc., in the imago stage, the affinities will be 

 best found in the larvae.' It is, therefore, incontestable that the 

 imago conforms to the Dianthcecia type ; so much so, indeed, that the 

 melanic var. of D. nana often passed for D. barrettii. The antennae 

 are of the Dianthcecia character, not that of Luperina ; the emergence 

 of the moth is that of a Dianthcecia ; the pupa is distinctly Dianthcecian 

 with the well-marked protuberance at the end of the wing-cases. 

 Staudinger and Wocke rank luteago as a Dianthcecia. It feeds in the 

 larval stage on Silene, which is the characteristic food of this genus. 

 But Mr. Buckler and Mr. Dobree say that the larva is similar in habits 

 to that of Luperina. How ? The head and first segment are exactly 

 those of Dianthcecia. The shape is also similar to D. capsophila, and 

 sometimes the larva of the latter is almost as pale as that of D. barrettii 

 The only point alleged is its being an internal feeder. And the ex- 

 traordinary thing is, that the greater portion of the species in Luperina 

 are not internal feeders. Some of them eat the roots of plants, as L. 

 cespitis, others eat the shoots and leaves, but hide only among the roots, 

 e.g., L. testacea, L. nickerlii and L. virens. L. rubella is the only one 

 that is, I believe, an internal feeder, the rest eat grass, or various por- 

 tions of low plants, just as D. capsophila does, to my knowledge, when 

 the capsules are not to be had. In fact, when capsophila larva is nearly 

 full-fed, it lives, like many NooTU-as, in the sand or earth, and eats 

 capsules, leaves or stems of the Silene at night. I have bred D. barrettii 

 as far as the larval stage, and the larva is a Dianthcecia larva, except 

 that it is blanched like every internal feeder. It, however, also eats 

 leaves and twigs above earth occasionally. Returning again to the 

 imago, the shape and pattern is that of the Iladenidce, none of the 

 marked characters being wanting. The Luperinas are conspicuously 

 devoid of these, and are rightly not so grouped. If we are to over- 

 look this, and class a species from one characteristic of the larva only, 

 we may as well remove D. barrettii to the Sesiidce and place it next 

 musciformis " (' Ent. Record,' ii., pp. 275-276); whilst Mr. Reid writes: 

 I consider D. barrettii a true Dianthcccia, the larvaa may have a super- 

 ficial resemblance to those of the genus Luperina, but I am told by 

 people who should know something about the matter, that they (the 

 larvae) are really Dianthcecia. The pupae are true Dianthcecia, and the 

 imagines are certainly in a more natural position among the Dianthcecia 

 than among the species of Luperina. The food plant should also be 

 considered, but to my mind, the structural difference of the pupa is 

 the best argument in favour of the insect being considered a species of 

 Dianthtecia " (' Ent. Rec.,' ii., p. 276.J The close resemblance between 

 ccqjsincola and cucubali, with the exception of the violet tint in the 

 latter, is rather remarkable. Guenee writes : " The Dianthwcice, 

 are pretty Noctuelles, with markings as delicate as their colours are 

 strongly marked. They fly quickly in the evening, over the flowers 



