262 THE entomologist's record. I 



was, and he was careful, having handed over this particular section of 

 his Catalogue, 3rd ed., to an outside specialist to do, to note, himself, 

 oi siibfulvata as a form of succenturiata, " ? Sp. div. Stdgr. esse videtur." 



Herr Herz, as I understand from Mr. Dadd's note, beat a lot of 

 wild larvae from yarrow, did not notice any appreciable diiferences in 

 them, in spite of the known variation, even within the limits of suh- 

 fulvata, bred therefrom succenturiata and subfulvata, with certain 

 aberrations which Mr. Dadd has seen, and, on the evidence of these 

 specimens, Mr. Dadd assumes succenturiata and subfulvata to be 

 in the Berlin district, at least, one species. Is evidence of this kind, 

 based on specimens bred in this way, of one atom of scientific value ? 

 Eupithecia s;(tTeHfi(r/afa has been bred many times in England from 

 succenturiata eggs, and subfulvata and its var. oxydata from subfulvata 

 eggs. The late Mr. Finlay, of Morpeth, at my suggestion, bred and 

 inbred the latter species for ten (or more) successive years, and he must 

 have reared some thousands of specimens, but although every conceiv- 

 able form of both subfulvata and oxydata was bred, from eggs laid by 

 either form, there was no succenturiata. I still have a large number of 

 these specimens. If Herr Berz had bred all his specimens from the 

 ova laid by a single $ of either succenturiata or subfulvata, then the 

 evidence presented by the specimens would be valuable ; but do the speci- 

 mens at present prove anything except that succenturiata and subfulvata 

 can both be bred from larvae found feeding on yarrow ? Suppose, for 

 example, from a very large number of caught (or reared from wild larvae) 

 aberrative Agrotids, I constructed a continuous chain, leading from say 

 obeUsca at one end, through tritici to cursoria the other, would this chain 

 prove that cursoria and obelisca were one species ? Until some thoroughly 

 reliable lepidopterist breeds both typical succenturiata and subfulvata 

 from the eggs of a S of one of them, and proves them to have the same 

 life-cycle, and that the difference of their genitalia is not specific, I 

 shall maintain that the biologic evidence already adduced in England is 

 abundantly sufiicient to prove their specific distinctness. I am not 

 surprised that Mr. Prout scouted the idea of these two insects being 

 forms of the same species. Possibly he saw as little in the evidence 

 brought forward as myself. I am not greatly smitten either by the 

 reference to Herr K. Dietze's "opinion"; what one wants are the 

 " facts " on which this opinion is based. One also wonder why Mr. Dadd 

 thinks succenturiata and subfulvata are very variable " all over the 

 continent." My own impression is that even with subfulvata there are 

 districts where it is remarkably constant to type. 



Mr. Dadd concludes that this is also " a problem to which English 

 entomologists should turn their attention." I know he will not mind 

 me saying that, as a "problem" demanding a scientific solution, and 

 not merely an expression of " opinion," the English entomologist is 

 the only man who has turned his attention to it. Has Mr. Dadd 

 forgotten the breeding notes published in the Entom. Record, on this 

 subject, some years ago ? 



I have taken the liberty of stating the other side to Mr. Dadd's . 

 two notes, directly in connection with the latter, so that our younger | 

 British lepidopterists may understand (1) that the older British ' 

 lepidopterists have not made the muddles that exist in Germany on 

 these questions, and (2) that the older British lepidopterists have : 

 already done much to prove the position they take up, by the only' 



