x ii INTRODUCTION. 



fauna, as Mr. Butler so rightly names many of those wno laboriously 

 work at Exotic species. Of course, there are naturalists among those 

 who interest themselves in Exotic species, but it is to the class 

 " describers of Exotic lepidoptera " so graphically described by Mr. 

 Butler, that I now refer. 



The above-quoted remarks concerning ligula and vaccinii, show 

 that the writer is not conversant with the condition of our knowledge 

 of the NOCTUJK at the present time. No writers have ever attempted 

 to make three species of these. It has been conclusively proved by 

 Dr. Chapman (' Ent. Mo. Mag.,' vol. xxvi., p. 86), that in Britain there 

 are certainly two species, and it follows that the lumping process 

 adopted above, is wrong in fact, and unscientific in principle. We 

 can ignore Mr. Butler's reference to Mr. Walker's ' Catalogue ' which 

 might comfortably be burned, in fact, I am surprised at even Mr. 

 Butler referring to it as an authority on such matters. Staudinger 

 makes two species, as also does Guenee, and so also do most entomolo- 

 gists of the present day, but change in synonymy has altered the old 

 order of things, and spadicea now equals ligula, vaccinii still remaining 

 distinct (ante, vol. iii., pp. 1 6). I am not surprised that Mr. Butler 

 cannot discriminate between ligula and vaccinii, when he makes such 

 startling errors as I have previously pointed out. 



It is surely strange of Mr. Butler to talk of purely European 

 entomologists as " hair-splitters," when the British Museum collection 

 contains a series of typical hyperborea in one drawer, and the red type 

 of the same species in another, mixed up with another species and 

 labelled cornea ; when there is a typical series of nigricans, and then 

 its var. carbonea is placed under the name of tritici. Truly such hap- 

 hazard criticism as this i:? not very valuable, when there is scarcely a 

 young entomologist in our London Societies who could not name such 

 species with ease. I hope Mr. Butler will not think I " am not quite 

 sensible of my own shortcomings," but I prefer to be an " European 

 worker " to an Exotic muddler. 



Mr. Butler is very unjust to Zeller, who was a naturalist, observant 

 in the field, and a master in his generation. The statement that he 

 divided " the remainder somewhere in the middle, being unable to find 

 any constant character by which to distinguish them," follows out the 

 general empirical style of Mr. Butler's criticisms. That Zeller " left 

 a typical N. ligula amongst his examples of G. vaccinii " is well-nigh 

 impossible. That Mr. Butler thought he had found one there does 

 not surprise me. 



One of the most remarkable instances of Mr. Butler's inability to 

 see specific characters, or perhaps, I ought rather to say to distinguish 

 allied species, occurs with regard to Leucania pollens and L. straminea. 

 He says : " L. pollens of the United States, agrees absolutely with the 

 European L. straminea. The two forms have practically the same 

 characters, and if received from any extra European locality, would 

 never have been considered distinct ; indeed, it is possible to find ex- 

 amples which cannot with certainty be referred to one form rather 

 than the other. L. straminea differs chiefly in the generally more 

 prominent pale longitudinal streak above the median vein of the 

 primaries, and the better-defined black or dark markings. Not having 

 bred both from the egg, I keep them separate in the collection " 

 (< Trans. Ent. Soc. of London,' 1890, pp. 660-661). Reference to the 



