NOTES ON TEPHROSIA BISTORTATA AND T. CREPUSctlLARIA. 9 



middle of May and the last of July ; whereas most persons choose 

 August as the time of their Swiss tour, a month which is, except for 

 those who come for mountaineering, in every way the least desirable 

 of the twelve. For the botanist, the entomologist, the artist, and for 

 all who appreciate natural beauty and grandeur, the late spring and 

 early summer are greatly preferable. 



Further notes on Tephrosia bistortata and T. crepuscularia. 



By L. B. PKOUT, F.E.S. 



As it seems to have been a special mission of the Fntomolor/ist's 

 Becord for some years past to clear up the complications connected with 

 Tephrosia bistortata and T. crepuscularia, I offer no apology for the 

 following notes, which are designed to supplement those in Entom. 

 Becord, viii., pp. 76, 303. 



In the first place, I sympathise with the spirit of Dr. Eiding's 

 " protest " [Entom. Becord, x., p. 14.5) against the restoration of the 

 name crepuscularia to Hiibner's species ; it certainly is very annoying 

 to find that Pleheius aer/on is the true P. art/us, Coremia unidcntaria ih.Q 

 true C. ferrwiata, and so on ; and it is a corresponding satisfaction to 

 find that evidence favours the retention of the traditional use of 

 Linne's name of hyale, and that a fairly good case, at least, can be 

 made out against Mr. Kirby's application of the name mcnthastri to 

 our " Buff ermine." But in the case of crepuscularia, I really do not 

 see that Dr. Eiding has any serious ground for complaint ; Stainton's 

 Manual, Mr. Briggs, Mr. F. N. Pierce, and others had the name 

 correctly applied before I wrote ; and it was only a section of the 

 British entomologists to whom the correction came as an innovation. 

 Where two usages are in conflict, surely the right one is to be 

 accepted, even by those Avho believe that in some cases the " law of 

 usage should override the law of priority." 



I find from some notes in Iris, x., pp. 58 et seq. (1897) that Dr. 

 Staudinger really understands these two Tephrosias a httle better than 

 his Cataloi/ led me to think. He has not even yet forgotten that 

 Doubleday (in litt.) insisted on their specific distinctness, and in 

 the note before me he admits that this is " very probable ; " 

 this is a great concession from an entomologist who inclines 

 to " lump " Caradrina cdsines and C. taraxaci, Cerastis vaccinii 

 and C. Ivjula, Cidaria truncata and C. imiiianata, Coremia ferrur/ata 

 and C. spadicearia, &c. He does not go into the question of their 

 distinctive characters, but remarks that in all his long series of 

 ^^ biundularia'' females (in Doubleday's sense) the long ovipositor 

 projects more or less (often a long way), but only in one (Scotch) 

 specimen of his many " crepnscularia." Of course this is not a very 

 important matter, as he does not hint that the former species has 

 actually a longer ovipositor ; but I think even differences of habit are 

 not entirely without significance Avhen found constant, or nearly so, in 

 a very large number of individuals. On examining my own very 

 limited material, I find a curious result ; the first brood bistortata and 

 the crepuscularia agree very well with Staudinger's observations, but 

 quite a number of the second brood bistortata protrude the ovipositor 

 some considerable distance. Perhaps Mr. Barrett will find herein 

 confirmation of his theory that " second brood crepuscularia is biundu- 

 laria." 



