IK THE BRITISH ISLANDS. 55 



of the wing. I have seen both male and female of this variety, the 

 hind wings of the latter being dusky. In fact, the insect seems only 

 distinguishable from E. nigra by the antennse of the male, and the 

 dentation of the sublateral line on the fore wings of both sexes " 

 (' Entomologist,' vol. xvii., pp. 14-15). Of this paper I would say, 

 (1) That Mr. Kane has adopted a rough translation of Guene'e's 

 description (which is here and there incorrect) for lutulenta, W.V., 

 which is a * Catalogue ' name, and of which there is no description 

 in the ' Vienna Catalogue,' and that he should, I think, have adopted the 

 original type description of Borkhausen. (2) That Mr. Kane in 

 following Staudinger's diagnosis of var. luneburgensis has fallen into 

 the latter author's error of overlooking Freyer's original description, 

 although, strange to say, Staudinger incorrectly calls his white-lined 

 var. luneburgensis, Frr. I quite agree with Mr. Kane that var. sedi, 

 has no right to be named lilneburgensis, but it is clear that the glossy 

 black Irish var. is that variety, and it appears equally certain that var. 

 luneburgensis has no " distinct white fasciae," which view he seems to 

 have adopted through Staudinger. Mr. Dobree then explained that the 

 usual Continental form is rather paler than any we get in England, 

 but there is no doubt that our Kent form and the ordinary Conti- 

 nental type are practically identical. He wrote : " My amusement 

 consists in collecting specimens of our insular NOCTUJE from different 

 parts of Europe, and I think that I can assist Mr. Kane. The typical 

 Epunda lutulenta of Continental authors is a relatively light-coloured 

 insect (vide the figures of H.-S., 83 and 405, and of Hiibner, 159 ; 

 and also specimens in my collection), which we seldom see. Their 

 luneburgensis (vide H.-S., 429 and 430) is our lutulenta proper in its 

 various shades of depth of colour, and I doubt whether any of these is 

 sufficiently dark to justify its being set up as a distinct variety, for I 

 have seen Kent specimens as dark as those from Morayshire. Sedi is 

 no doubt the ashy grey variety passing here as luneburgensis (but why ?). 

 I certainly have received sedi from Germany under the name of 

 luneburgensis, but I have set that down as done in deference to our 

 English acceptance of the word ; and this is probably the case with 

 Mr. Doubleday's specimen, Herrich-Schaffer gives a figure, No. 428, 

 which is a fair representation of sedi, and probably intended as such ; 

 but unfortunately, in the text below, the number is quite omitted " 

 (' Entomologist,' vol. xviii., 106-107). At the same time I am afraid, 

 Mr. Dobree was not at that period, quite conversant with the black 

 forms obtained by Mr. Percy Russ at Sligo, or he would not have 

 inlcuded them, when he said : " I doubt whether any of these is 

 sufficiently dark to justify its being set up as a distinct variety." The 

 inclusion of the black Sligo form as var. luneburgensis, is, however, 

 certainly warranted by Freyer's description, which is an excellent 

 one of our very darkest Scotch and Irish forms. Of these Sligo forms, 

 Mr. Russ writes : " The varieties luneburgensis and sedi both occur in 

 this district. By lilneburgensis, I mean the dark form almost as black 

 as Epunda nigra, but with the central bar clearly visible in certain 

 lights ; and by sedi the ashy-grey form with very distinct darker 

 central bar. Neither of them have any superficial resemblance to 

 what I believe to be the ordinary English Epunda lutulenta, which I 

 take to be a dull smoky brown, nearly unicolorous, insect, by no 

 means so handsome as either of the varieties named. In one of my 



