A PUZZLING GROUP OF EUPITHECIIDS. 259 



A puzzling group of Eupitheciids. 



By E. M. DADD, F.E.S. 



In the Ent. Record {antea, p. 157), Mr. Tutt has discussed the 

 question of the specific identity, or otherwise, of the innotata — fraxinata 

 — tam.arisciata — group of Eupitheciids. As this group has frequently 

 given rise to discussion here, in Berlin, I cannot do better than to give 

 a resume of what is known of it here. For this purpose, I have applied 

 to Herr Arthur Herz, one of the authors of the " Berlin List of 

 Lepidoptera," who has had considerable experience with, and has bred 

 most of, the species occurring here. He writes: " Eiipithecia innotata, 

 Hufn. — tamarisciata, Freyer — fraxinata, Crewe. I have frequently 

 collected larvae (of innotata) in the autumn from Artemisia cavrpestris, 

 the pupfe hybernate, as is well known, and, if forced, emerge very early. 

 In nature, E. innotata is on the wing in May and early June, occasion- 

 ally the pupae hybernate over two winters, and, on one occasion, one 

 emerged from a hybernated pupa in July. I have only once succeeded 

 in rearing the second generation from ova laid by the first ; they were 

 fed on the young shoots of Prunus imdus. The imagines reared showed 

 the same amount of variability as the spring brood, but did not differ from 

 them in any way. The variation consisted of a difference in size, as 

 well as colour and markings. Specimens of small size with obsolete 

 markings, which appear almost unicolorous, I have always regarded as 

 fraxinata, Crewe, following the example of the Museum here (which, 

 however, I should not like to quote as an authority) . Similar specimens, 

 however, occur in the first generation, they are generally obtained from 

 underfed larvfe, which is no rare occurrence when breeding. The 

 conclusion that these small specimens are due to underfeeding, was 

 confirmed when breeding larvae beaten in July from sloe, Prunus 

 spinosa, the larvae belonging to the second generation, the foodplant 

 did not last well and consequently only three underfed specimens were 

 bred, all of the fraxinata form. The ab. tamarisciata is, according to 

 Staudinger's diagnosis, ' smaller, darker, almost unicolorous lead- 

 grey,' my experience is, that it is a rare aberration occurring with the 

 type form." 



It seems to me, that at present we are at cross purposes. Is the 

 small unicolorous form of innotata, Hufn., which, as above seen, can be 

 bred from the same batch of ova as typical innotata, really identical 

 with the species from ash, described from England as fraxinata, 

 Crewe ? I strongly suspect that it is not, and that the latter has 

 been incorrectly referred by Staudinger to innotata, Hufn. Its great 

 similarity to the small unicolorous specimens of the last has, no doubfc, 

 caused this confusion. I think Mr. Tutt, however, goes too far when be 

 says " I, for one, consider them as abundantly distinct ; the conditions of 

 their environment, their habits, and their foodplants, being so entirely 

 different," for, though, at first sight, this seems to be the case, especially 

 when one associates innotata entirely with Artemisia, yet, as above 

 shown, this assumption is entirely erroneous, the summer (second) 

 brood having quite different habits from those of the spring brood, the 

 larvae not feeding on Artemisia, but on numerous trees and shrubs, 

 viz., Prmius, Crataegus, Rosa, Symphoricarpus, and possibly Fraa;in»s / 

 From the above it will be seen, that there is also something to be 

 said for placing fraxinata as a variety of innotata, the onus rests on 



I 



