109 



NOTES ON CERTAIN SCOPARI^. 

 By H. Guard Knaggs, M.D., F.L.S. 



Though our best entomologists have, for considerably more 

 than a quarter of a century, recognised Scoparia atomalis, Dbld., 

 basistrigalis, Knaggs, and ulmella, Knaggs (Dale MS.) ^- con- 

 spicualis, Hodgkinson, as species distinct from amhigualis, Tr., 

 there are still several who fail to distinguish the characters 

 which separate them, the difficulty, as I pointed out many years 

 ago, probably arising from the retention of poor specimens, and 

 the mixing up of species in collections. It is therefore my pur- 

 purpose further on in these notes to suggest a method of regard- 

 ing them which was found, in years gone by, to be very service- 

 able to my friends and myself, and which may in the future be 

 useful to others ; but first let us compare each separately with 

 amhigualis, T., and begin with atomalis, Dbld., which most nearly 

 approaches that species. 



I am aware that those observant entomologists, Messrs. 

 Bankes and Briggs, for whose opinion I entertain the greatest 



respect, having satisfied themselves as 

 to connecting links between amhigualis 

 and atomalis, regard them as identical ; 

 and certainly, in the gradations of their 

 sombre tints, and the inconspicuity of 

 their markings, their examination is very 

 perplexing ; but neither of these gentle- 

 men makes any reference to the shape of 

 N the fore wings, which to my eye is, in 



' ' amhigualis, broader transversely between 



the costa and anal angle, giving the 

 wing a somewhat triangular form ; while 

 in atomalis the corresponding part is 

 narrower, and consequently the wing 

 appears to be proportionately longer. 

 There also seems to be a greater differ- 

 ence between the respective fore wings 

 of the sexes of amhigualis than in those 

 of atomalis. To my fancy these insects, 

 even when occurring in the same locality, 

 whether in England (as Cumberland), 

 Scotland (as Eannoch), or Ireland (as 

 Sligo), may be separated by this cha- 

 racter, not to mention, as a corroboration, the relation of the 

 claviform stigma to the first line ; for I quite agree with Mr. 

 Bankes that, although it is about as unusual to find the claviform 

 stigma attached to the first line in amhigualis as it is to find it 

 detached in atomalis, the occurrence is not of a sufficiently 



»S. ambiyualis, ^ and J 



