76 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



contains the example of giieneei* received from Hodgkinson, and 

 that the label belonging to it reads : — *' Taken by Porter and 

 Stephenson of Bolton, at Ehyl, Aust. 12th, 1860 " : the year 

 specified practically agrees with Hodgkinson's " 1860 or 1861," 

 and it seems most probable that the moths were really captured 

 in 1860, and that the " 1862" of Doubleday and Barrett is not 

 accurate. Although I have examined, in my own and other 

 collections, some extraordinarily pale aberrations of L. testacea, 

 not one of them at all reminds me of the true gueneei, and ever 

 since the acquisition, and careful comparison, of the type male 

 of the latter in 1905, I have been unable to accept the opinion 

 of Barrett and others that it is only a form of testacea, and 

 regard it as highly satisfactory that Doubleday's action in 

 separating it has at last been proved, by the evidence of the 

 genitalia, to have been fully justified. It would be of great 

 interest if Mr. Sydney Webb would inform us whether the two 

 reputed gueneei in the Bond collection are really referable to 

 Doubleday's species. In Lep. Brit. Isl., iv., 335 (1897), Barrett 

 says that they do not fully agree with "this variety of L. tes- 

 tacea,'' that is, with L. gueneei, Dbld., which he has just stated to 

 be, in his opinion, only an extreme form of its close ally. 



Besides the differences in colour, L. gueneei seems to be, on 

 the whole, a rather smaller species than testacea, I have 

 examined eight British examples of the former and scores of the 

 latter, and although both insects vary considerably in size, the 

 gueneei are, on an average, certainly smaller than the testacea ,- 

 they are, in addition, narrower in the fore wing, although 

 strikingly narrow-winged examples of the latter are very occa- 

 sionally met with. From Entom., xliii., 42 (1910), we learn that 

 the Piev. C. K. N. Burrows is not acquainted with the " three 

 round white dots on the costa near the apex," which are stated 

 by Doubleday (Ent. Ann., 1864, p. 124) to be "so distinct" in 

 testacea but absent in gueneei. In my experience, however, the 

 three pale dots, to which Doubleday obviously refers, are, in 

 nearly every instance, visible in the former, though they are not 

 always equally distinct, and more frequently exhibit some shade 

 of buff than of white. Three similar white dots, in precisely the 

 same positions, are sometimes present in gueneei, and I can (pace 

 Doubleday) even distinguish them with certainty on the left fore 

 wing of the type male, though on the right fore wing they are not 

 discernible. But seeing that Doubleday {tom.cit., p. 123), after 

 alluding to " a pale patch on the costa near the apex," specially 

 says, " On the costa near the apex are two oblique white spots," 



'■'■ Hodgkinson appears to be responsible for this identification, which, 

 although not yet confirmed by any authority, is presumably correct. In any 

 case, no question of importance rests upon it, and the value of the evidence 

 afforded by the label, in considering the question of the date of capture of 

 the type specimens, would in no way be affected, even if Hodgkinson's 

 determination were proved to be incorrect. — E. R. B. 



