98 VARIETIES OF NOCTU^E 



wings agrees very fairly with Hubner's figure, and sometimes shows 

 even a dark shade before the cilia which the colourer might by -mistake 

 have transferred to the pale cilia themselves.* But since according to 

 Treitschke, vol. v., pt. 2, p. 315, Hubner's extrema^ has lately been 

 added to nearly all the larger collections from the neighbourhood of 

 the Rhine and the Main, and bondii has hitherto only been taken in the 

 South of England and on Mount Parnassus, it became highly im- 

 probable, independently of its slighter form, that it could be the extrema 

 of Hiibner. According to this statement made by Treitschke, it was 

 evident that this extrema must be a species occurring with us in 

 Germany, and probably existing in our larger collections. Now Guenee 

 has in the 1st volume of his ' Noctuse ' at p. 103 (' Noctuelites ' &c., 

 vol. v., p. 103), described a new species from England, which in my 

 Catalogue ' of 1861, at p. 46, I referred to extrema, Hb., but without 

 assigning any reason for this step, nor at that time indeed could I have 

 done so, so that the union of the two, especially considering Hubner's 

 fig. 412, must have appeared very venturesome. Guenee, in good 

 truth, looking at Hiibner's figure could not suspect J in it his English 

 species, and therefore described it as new under the name ' concolor.' 

 This English species, which, since the draining of the fens, where it 

 formerly occurred, has not been met with in England for many years || 

 has now been found, as I learn on good authority, near Berlin, in 

 Silesia, near Vienna and in Hungary. There seems, therefore, no 

 doubt that it frequents all similar marshy localities, consequently would 

 be found at the Rhine and the Main, whence Treitschke obtained it, 

 unless there also the marshy ground has been drained. Now what 

 did I find in Treitschke's collection with the name extrema ? Two 

 indubitable specimens of concolor. In Ochsenheiuier's collection were 

 two old, bad specimens, the upper one being a $ fulva, Hb., the 

 lower one, in very bad condition, seemed tolerably surely to be Guenee's 

 concolor ; the label written by Ochsenheimer himself, stands thus : 



'Fulva, Hb., <?. 

 Extrema, Hb., ? .' 



" This agrees precisely with what Ochsenheimer says in his vol. iv., 

 p. 82, and which Treitschke, vol. v., p. 313, takes for an error. 

 Treitschke hardly appears to have known the red form of Tap. fluxa, 

 the fulva of Hiibner, and it is quite a matter of indifference whether 

 in Hubner's fig. 413, he sees a ^ or a $ , since to my fancy this figure 

 is incorrect, and does not suit either for fluxa or fulva, of which last 

 name Hiibner has given -an excellent representation at fig. 496. Since 

 amongst hundreds of fluxa and fulva, I never saw a specimen with per- 



* This was exactly my view formed independently and without having seen 

 this article. 



fThat is, a species called by collectors extrema, and which Staudinger 

 further on says were concolor, Gn. 



JJust so! If Staudinger agrees that "Guenee, in good truth, looking at 

 Hubner's figure could not suspect in it his concolor," and if the real specimen is 

 as Dr. Staudinger avers " almost precisely like Hubner's figure, why does he 

 combine the two, except that the German collectors were then obtaining 

 concolor and calling it, collector-fashion, extrema, ? 



|| It has, of course, been taken in comparative plenty the last few years by 

 Capt. Vipan, and an odd specimen was captured in Essex, by Mr. Mera, in 

 1891. 



