112 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



exhibited, at the Entomological Society of London, a wonderful 

 series of varieties of this insect, which created great interest ; 

 and later on he contributed an excellent paper on the subject to 

 the E.M.M. (vol. vi. n. s. p. 273). Mr. Bower has had plenty of 

 experience with hasistrigalis, and says : — " The shape of this 

 species will always distinguish it from ambigualis, its fore wings, 



though narrow at the base, being de- 

 cidedly broader than in that species, 

 with a greatly arched costa, especially 

 so in females. And, again, the time of 

 its occurring would tend to prove it 

 distinct, as, although there is actually 

 no definite period between its emerg- 

 ence and the disappearance of ambigu- 

 alis, the latter has become greatly 

 diminished in numbers and in a dilapi- 

 dated condition before hasistrigalis puts 

 in an appearance. Added to which 

 anyone having seen the species in 

 nature cannot but have been struck 

 with the peculiarly robust look of the 

 insect, due to the width of the united 

 fore wings." Mr. Bower says that the 

 moths are not uncommon in one or 

 two Kentish woods, but in these are 

 restricted to a very small area, and 

 even then show a partiality for certain 

 trees. He believes it not to be a moss- 

 feeder, for the reason that he has failed 

 to breed it by placing females in pots of 

 growing moss, whereas mercurella and 

 cratcegalis, thus treated, breed freely. 

 He does not agree with the theory that 

 the variation is solely due to more 

 succulent food or damp situation, be- 

 cause most of his captures, dark as well 

 as light, were made in an abnormally 

 dry locality — sand on a chalk subsoil. 

 At the end of his paper Mr. Bower 

 gives a very interesting enumeration of the variations of this 

 species. 



Such testimony from two eminent lepidopterists, given quite 

 independently of each other, ought surely to satisfy all who are 

 open to conviction, but I do not despair of eventually bringing 

 home to the minds of the most sceptical the fact that hasistrigalis 

 and amhigualis are distinct species. Ah me ! I wish I could feel 

 as I did twenty years ago, just for a season or two, that I might 

 experience the delight of collecting the insect, and distributing it 



basistrigalis, <y and 5 



ivnhUjualis, J 



