OVER AKD OVER AGAIN. V 



relative values of a number of other species as associates of these 

 selected ones. I hope every British coleopterist will obtain a copy of 

 this paper, will study it with the care it deserves, and will take to 

 heart the lesson it so clearly inculcates. Mr. Balfour Browne, by this 

 most admirable piece of work, brings home clearly what a wide field 

 of work lies at the door of every one of us ; the harvest is waiting to 

 be garnered, who will be the harvesters ? 



The year now closing has been a most fruitful one, much good 

 work has been done, but the band of real workers still remains far 

 too scanty in numbers to make much impression on the mass of 

 investigations still needed before it can be said with truth that we 

 possess a real scientific knowledge of our beetle fauna. 



Over and Over again. Variation of Heliophobus hispida. Wliat is 

 Tasniocampa gotliica ab. gotliicina? 



By A. M. COCHBANE. 



I read in -the report of a recent meeting of one of the London 

 Entomological Societies as follows : " Mr. Stonell exhibited (1) A 

 picked series of Heliophobus hispidus to show the very small variation 

 in British specimens. (2) A long series of Taeniocampa gothica and its 

 var. gothicina, extremely varied, some of the latter form having the 

 * gotliica ' mark obsolete." I ask myself, what does Mr. Stonell mean ? 



(1) I cannot see any logical connection between Mr. Stonell's series of 

 H. hispidus and the possible extent of its variation in the British Isles; 

 his series surely can only show that the specimens he has in his 

 possession vary little. As a matter of fact, I am here girding at the 

 illogicality, as well as the probable incorrectness, of such a conclusion. 



(2) I ask myself whether there can be such a thing as a var. gothicina^ 

 with the gothica-VLia,vk obsolete, or whether Mr. Stonell has discovered 

 anything new about Herrich-Schaffer's gothicina. Here I am girding 

 at an apparently definite inaccuracy of assumed very elementary fact. 



I do not propose going behind the very simple facts that are as 

 easily accessible to Mr. Stonell as myself. Let us look first of all at 

 the variation of Heliophobus hispidus (or, rather, hispida, as Geyer 

 named it). At a meeting of the South London Entomological Society 

 for April 23rd, 1891, i.e., 14^ years ago, Mr. Tutt pointed out that 

 there were two " races" of this species in the British Isles, inhabiting 

 two districts so near each other as Portland and Torquay. It cannot 

 be said surely that a species, presenting two "distinct" races within 

 the limits of the counties of Dorset and Devonshire, is subject ''to 

 very small variation in the British Isles." As a matter of fact, within 

 certain limits there is no doubt that H. hispidus is a very fairly variable 

 species. Looking at our, at present, standard work on the subject 

 {The British Noctuae and their Varieties, vol. i., pp. 125-127), we note 

 that Geyer figured the type specimen, with the pale markings tinged 

 with a delicate shade of violet, and Guenee at least implies that such a 

 violet-tinged form was known to him. There is never this decided 

 tint in British specimens, but Tugwell {Proc. South Lond. Bhit. Soc, 

 1890, p. 54) exhibited bred British specimens that he said showed a 

 violaceous tint, Richardson, too, quoted by Tutt {Brit. Noctuae, etc., 

 i., p. 126) says that in certain Portland specimens there is "an 

 approach to a violet tinge on the transverse line just beyond the 



