THE SYNONYMY OF SOME OF THE EMEKALD MOTHS. 181 



synonymy of the Clematis Emerald. The Linnean description reads 

 as follows : 



"P/;. G. I'ernaria. Pectinicornis, alls vii'idibus : strigis duabus albis repandis, 

 antennis apice setaceis. Praeeedenti [lactearia^ simillima, sed alae pallide vires- 

 centes strigis duabus, albis. repandis : altera versus postiea. Subtus tota pallidior. 

 Accedit ad Ph. vindatam. Hab. in Dalekarlia, C. Blom." (Linn., F. S., ed. ii., 

 p. 323). 



Tohitata, Fb., " Syst. Ent.," p. 635 (1775). — -Werneburg argues 

 that this represents the species now under consideration, but Staudinger 

 denies this with a " certo," and as the first author who dealt with the 

 name, i.e., Borkhausen, plausibly determined it for viridata, Linn., 

 and his determination has never been proved erroneous, it seems to me 

 inadmissible to take up the name volutata for our Clematis Emerald ; 

 yet Werneburg' s view obtained a little siipportfrom a source which he 

 was apparently not able to investigate, for Fabricius (''Spec. Ins.," ii., 

 p. 262) cites, though with a, ?, " Harris," tab. 8, fig. 8, i.e., of Harris' 

 "Exposition," where the Clematis species is represented. The Fabrician 

 description reads as follows : 



" P/i. volutata. Seticornis, alls omnibus viridibus, strigis duabus albis. Hab. 

 in Germania. Corpus et alae viridia. Strigte dute lineares, anteriore obsoletiore : 

 subtus striga unica obsoleta " (Fab., Syst. Ent., p. 635). 



J^rur/inaria, Bork., "Eur. Schmett.," v. 43 (1794). — This is 

 quite certainly =rt'r»rt?'irt, Auct. (iiec Linn.), but it rests on a reference 

 to aeru<iinaria, Schiff., which is just as certainly not this species ; 

 Schiffermilller was too good an entomologist to have named a non- 

 variable species like this twice, and, moreover, he places his aeriKjinaria 

 heUxeen piitataria and lactearia, which would have led to the suspicion 

 that it was a green lactearia, even if Treitschke had not later (on the 

 evidence of the Vienna collection) stated this to be the case. ■■■^¥n-u<ii- 

 naria, Bork., must, therefore, be set aside as invalid. 



Ohr(i>ioprasaria, Esp., v., figs. 1-4 (1794). — Here at length we come 

 upon an admissible and by no means inappropriate name which should 

 henceforward be adopted for the species ; it may or may not be prior 

 to Borkhausen's aeriiijinarla, but the question is of no importance. 



i^Lucidata, Don., iii., p. 67, pi. xcvii (1794). — This was erected in 

 the same year as the preceding, but as it collides with Phalaena hicidata, 

 Fb., " Spec. Ins.," ii., p. 259 (1781) it cannot be adopted, even if it 

 can be shown to have priority. 



3. Geometra [Hemithea) strv/ata, Miill. — I have a strong suspicion 

 that this species is the true vernaria of Linne, but as his description is 

 defective, and has led Werneburg and Staudinger to determine it for 

 green lactearia (the earlier name having been founded on faded, colour- 

 less examples), I do not venture to restore it — especially as its 

 application also to chrysopramria, Esp., tends to deepen the confusion. 

 Linne's type specimen of vernaria, which bears the appearance of 

 being authentic, is certainly a small Htri<iata, Miill. The other names 

 to be considered in connection with this species are : 



Viridata, Linn., " Syst. Nat.," edit, x (1758). — Werneburg argues 

 at great length that this is really = .s?)7V/rt to, Miill., but his arguments 

 are so weak that I will not even waste space in quoting them. 

 Scopoli in 1763, SchiffermiiUer in 1775, and a host of others, rightly 

 recognised Linne"s species, and his type is still extant, _ confirming the 

 identification. Viridata, Linn., nee Wrnbg., therefore, stands for the 

 species so named by Tr., Gn., Stgr. et auct. 



