IN THE BRITISH ISLANDS. 103 



Below it, there is a typical arundineta of Schmidt, with a label 

 whereon is written in Ochsenheimer's handwriting, ' An eadem cum 

 prsecedente? sub nomine Noctua dissoluta.' In Treitschke's collection 

 there are five specimens, under the label ' neurica,' of which the first 

 is neurica of Hiibner, 381 ; the second, third and fourth are arundmeta, 

 Schmidt, and the fifth is the dark form of neurica * (Hiibner, figs. 659- 

 661), subsequently hessii of Boisduval, and from this, as well as from 

 what Treitschke says about neurica (vol. v., pt. 2, p. 319), it is 

 strikingly shown that Treitschke threw together the three forms, 

 although Ochsenheimer had previously rightly conjectured the latter 

 to be another species, arundineta (so well distinguished by my friend 

 Schmidt of Wismar, in the < Stett. ent. Zeit.,' 1858, p. 369, etc.). The 

 name dissoluta must therefore only be retained from the dark form of 

 arundineta (for that only it certainly is), for Hiibner's 659-661, and 

 for hessii, Boisd., as Treitschke, when mentioning this name, means 

 only the dark form. But to act with strict propriety the name 

 dissoluta of Treitschke must be retained as the typical name for the 

 sake of priority ; the name arundineta of Schmidt must be added to it 

 as a variety, although this black dissoluta of Treitschke is now 

 extremely scarce, and has not been found since the death of old Hess. 

 Whether at all, and in what proportion, also the light form of 

 arundineta occurs near Darmstadt, is unknown to me. Near Wismar, 

 Schmidt never found the dark form " (< Stettiner entomologische 

 Zeitung,' 1869). 



Criticising this note of Staudinger, I wrote as follows : " In the 

 ' Stettiner Zeitung ' for 1869, Dr. Staudinger wrote some notes on 

 this species which were translated by Mr. Albt. Miiller, and published, 

 April 1870, in the ' Entomologist.' I gather from that note that the 

 synonomy given there was adopted in Dr. Staudinger's ( Catalog,' 

 published directly afterwards. This being so, I find that Dr. 

 Staudinger, in his ' Catalog,' treats our British specimens as dissoluta, 

 Tr. var. arundineta, Schmidt, as he gives England as a locality for 

 that species, but not for neurica, Hb. In the two English counties, 

 Norfolk and Cambridge, we get a species which has been variously 

 known as neurica, Hb., arundineta, Schmidt and dissoluta, Tr. Dr. 

 Staudinger has, apparently, come to the conclusion that neurica, Hb. 

 is unknown in England, and that it is a species distinct from arundineta, 

 Schmidt. There is no doubt that neurica, Hb., fig. 381, represents 

 a form which occurs in England ; the distinct ocellus so characteristic 

 of Hiibner's fig. 381 is well developed. Our specimens of this form 

 are simply a little redder than Hiibner's figure. Another variety of 

 the same species, taken in England with the form described above 

 (neurica, Hb.), is undoubtedly arundineta, Schmidt. According to 

 Dr. Staudinger's own list we, in England, get arundineta, Schmidt. If 

 so, our arundineta is certainly only a variety of Hiibner's neurica. We 



* A footnote is added by Miiller to this name which reads as follows : 

 " Mr. Doubleday suggests that this name (neurica) should be printed arundineti, 

 and that the name neurica has been written by Dr. Staudinger in mistake. In 

 his Catalog,' dissoluta, stands as a variety of arundineti. There is probably a 

 dark form of the true arundineti, but Mr. Doubleday does not know that 

 anyone has found it." To be consistent, it would appear that Staudinger 

 should here replace " ne urica " by " arundineta," but Dr. Staudinger's use of 

 neurica is quite correct, as the dark specimens, afterwards referred by 

 Staudinger to arundineta, were really called neurica by HUbner. 



