MAY ^ 1900 '^ 



#^ ... *'% 



JOURNAL OF VARIATION. 



Vol. XII. No. 4. April 15th, 1900. 



Phibalapteryx aquata as a British species. 



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



I am naturally much pleased at the addition of another member of 

 my favourite family, the Larentiidae, to our British list (antea, p. 35), 

 and should like to add a little to what Mr. Tutt has published. When 

 he approached me on the subject of this species, I had so much work 

 on hand that I was only able to tell him just what occurred to me on 

 the spur of the moment. I see from Tugwell's sale catalogue (January 

 20th, 1896, lot 51) that one of the specimens of aquata to which I 

 alluded was included in " Vitalbata 5, bred by self, /7«e white vars.," and 

 Mr. Moberly tells us that he bought this lot. It would be interesting 

 to know whether the "fine white vars." (i.e., aquata) or only the typical 

 vitalbata with them, were bred by Mr. Tugwell himself. I presume 

 the one which Dr. Sequeira got, was in lot 52, where there were 

 " Vitalbata 7, bred by self, 1 2)ale var." (sold for 5s., though including 

 three fine pale vars. of Cidaria conjlata, &c., &c.). The aquata would 

 probably have reached a much higher price if a whisper had not gone 

 round in the sale room that they were not vitalbata vars. at all, but a 

 " foreign species." In view, however, of Mr. Tutt's circumstantial 

 record, there seems no reason to doubt the bona fides of Mr. Tugwell's 

 examples also. 



Mr. Tutt says he cannot " see any real distinction between aquata 

 and vitalbata, except the difference in the ground colour." I must say 

 the two had never struck me as being exceptionally similar — probably 

 because I have never seen intermediate vars. of either— and I was 

 astounded when I saw the aquata in Tugwell's cabinet posing as 

 vitalbata vars. But now that the resemblance has once been pointed 

 out to me, I confess that I can see that it is tolerably close. I may 

 remark, however, that aquata is a smaller insect (generally iiiuch 

 smaller), lacks the dorsal darkening of the abdomen, has the lines 

 outside the central area decidedly straighter, perhaps also a somewhat 

 differently shaped wing. Aurivillius says that the ^ genitalia differ 

 from those of vitalbata. 



The early stages have been described by Eossler (Wien. Ent. 

 Monats., vi., p. 130), but unfortunately he does not give a side-by-side 

 comparison with those of vitalbata, and though I have several times 

 bred the latter, I am afraid I have no notes sufficiently minute to be 

 of use in furnishing any differential characters. I quote what Eossler 

 says, as it may aid in making comparisons in the coming season. He 



