INTRODUCTION. XI 



specimens under the name of N. punicea are specimens of N. umbrosa. 

 Four specimens of Agrotis nigricans var. carbonea are placed in the series 

 of A. tritici ; whilst one of the most marvellous errors is in connection 

 with Agrotis hyperborea. A very fine series of the typical grey form of 

 this species (vide, ante, vol. ii., p. 85) is in the collection. Our British 

 specimens are redder than the type, and, as is well known to most of our 

 collectors, were called carnica for some years. There is an European 

 species in Pachnobia, called carnea. Struck apparently by the similarity 

 of the names carnica and carnea, the two red (type) specimens of 

 hyperborea labelled carnica, have been placed in the midst of a series of 

 carnea, in another genus, and to which they do not bear the slightest 

 likeness. These errors, at any rate, will be sufficient to give workers 

 of the NOCTUJE some idea of the comparative worthlessness of the 

 British Museum material of this group in its present condition, and the 

 necessity of actual verification of everything published on the group ; 

 and if such errors as these occur in our own well-known species, what 

 are the possible errors in those less well known ? Nothing can show 

 more, too, the danger attending the (to my mind, unnecessary) method 

 of breaking up the collections on which our future work must be based. 

 It is simply amazing to think that such collections as the Grote and 

 Zeller collections, should be allowed to be broken up and distributed, 

 especially when such errors as these already quoted, are made by those 

 who make the distribution, and who thus criticise the work of ento- 

 mologists, work (which such errors lead us I think fairly to assume) 

 is not understood. 



With regard to hap-hazard criticism, the following is an example 

 from the pen of Mr. Butler, who appears from his writings, to be 

 somewhat if not entirely responsible for the present condition both 

 in naming and arrangement of the national collection of NOCTUJS. 

 Referring to Cerastis ligula and C. vaccinii, he writes : " The describers 

 of Exotic lepidoptera frequently have to suffer from the bitter onslaught 

 of men whose experience is limited to a study of the European, and 

 sometimes to the British fauna, these men complaining that the student 

 of tropical forms makes too many species. As a matter of fact, no men 

 are greater " hair- splitters " than purely European workers. The 

 above is only one out of many instances in which one variable species 

 has been laboriously sorted out into three. Formerly, N. ligula was 

 believed to be in all probability, a variety of N. spadicea, Schiff. ; but 

 N. vaccinii was regarded as a very distinct species. In Walker's 

 * Catalogue ' (part x., p. 450), N. ligula stands as a recognised variety 

 Staudinger, on the other hand (' Cat.,' pp. 118-119), calls spadicea an 

 aberration of vaccinii, but raises ligula to the rank of a species. Zeller, 

 with his seventy specimens, showing every gradation between the 

 three forms, was sadly bothered ; so that he left a typical N. ligula 

 amongst his examples of G. vaccinii, and divided the remainder some- 

 where in the middle, being evidently unable to find any constant 

 character by which to distinguish them. Is it not a sense of their own 

 short-comings which makes the describers of European lepidoptera so 

 bitter against the students of Exotic species ? " (' Transactions of Ent. 

 Soc. of London,' 1890, pp. 682-683). 



I think I can safely answer this query in the negative. European, 

 and more especially British lepidopterists, are rather observers of lepi- 

 doptera and students of their earlier stages, than " describers " of their 



