A CKITICAL STUDY OF AMORPHA POPULI, LINN. 29 



A Critical Study on some often disputed aberrations of Amorplia 



populi, Linn.* {n-ith /date). 



By M. GILLMEE. 



I have remarked in my article on Amorpha populi ab. tremnlae, Borl\h. 

 {Insekten Borse, xix., 1902, p. 229), that it might be possible to show 

 that the figure of Koch {Sc/uj>ett.-d.-siidwestl. Deiitschlands, 1856, tab. i) 

 is identical with Glaser's description of ab. tremnlae, but, till now, I 

 have not come to any definite conclusion in this matter. Although Esper 

 (1779-81), Borkhausen (1789, 1793), Glaser (1853, 1854, 1863), and 

 Koch (1856) speak of the same light-grey aberration of Amorpha populi, 

 and have used the same name and published two figures, their ideas 

 do not agree. Bartel thought that the name tremnlae belonged tO' 

 Fischer's Russian species, and so changed the name tremnlae of the 

 German aberration into ab. borkhameni (1900), but this is not the case,, 

 for the name tremnlae was used by Borkhausen in 1793 for Esper's 

 aberration of A. populi, and, being the older one, the name of 

 Borkhausen's ab. tremnlae should not be changed, but the name of the 

 Russian species. Therefore I have suppressed the name of ab. 

 borkhanseni, Bart., for Glaser's aberration tremnlae in the Insekten 

 Borse, 1902. But, in doing this, I have not accomplished much, for I 

 have not changed the name of Fischer's Russian species, yet I did 

 not mean to neglect consideration of the Russian form, although at 

 the time I only wanted to restore the name to Borkhausen's ab. 

 tremnlae, which he had given, but which had not been accepted by 

 authors. I did not think it necessary, for historical motives, to change 

 Fischer's name, although the rules of nomenclature require it, and Mr. 

 Tutt {Brit. Lep., vol. iii., 1902, p. 469), therefore, proposes the name 

 amurensis, Stdgr. I have got several specimens of the Russian tremnlae 

 and of the aberration amnrensis, but I do not think this material 

 sufficient to alter the name of the Russian species. Also the figures and 

 descriptions of the species tremnlae and ab. amurensis do not tempt me to 

 change the name. In his works, Fischer has not given any descrip- 

 tion but only a figure of the species tremnlae, which Zetter had then 

 recently found near Moscow. On plate x., fig. 1, he shows the J , fig. 

 2, the ? , and fig. 3, the caterpillar. 



Treitschke gave the first diagnosis of the new Russian form in 

 1834, in his book {Schmett. von Europa, vol. x., pt. 1, p. 140), Herrich- 

 Schafier gave new descriptions and a figure in his Syst. Bearb. d, 

 Schmett. von Europa, vol. ii.,p. 91 (1847), in his Nachtraf/,T£). 50 (1856), 

 and in his Suppl., pi. 4, fig. 12. Besides this, Duponchel mentioned 

 the same species in his continuation of the Hist. nat. des Lepidopteres 

 de France, suppl. to vol. iii., p. 29 (1835), pi. ii., figs. 2a, b, and 

 Menetries gave a comparative description in his Enumeratio corp. anim. 

 Mus. imp. acad. scient. Petrop., pt. ii. (1857), p. 188. 



Herrich-Schaffer ignored Koch's restitution of ab. tremnlae, Borkh., 

 and, in his review of Koch's work {Corresp. Blattd. zooL-mineralo;/. Vereins 

 Refiensburfi, 1857, p. 67), he talks without authority of a vindication of this 

 name, so that ab. tremnlae, Borkh., seemed as if it should be suppressed. 

 Esper's picture {Schmett. Eur., 2 TL, pi. xxii., suppl. iv., fig. 2) is, 



*To understand clearly the points raised in this article, British lepidopterists- 

 should consult Tutt's account of Amorpha populi (Natural History of the British^. 

 Lepidoptera, vol. iii., pp. 469-471). 

 February 15th, 1906. 



