76 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
unfavourable opinion on Bondroit’s work (for whom we have . 
personally nothing but the most friendly feelings); but it appears to 
us to be absolutely necessary, in the interests of the study of ants, 
that such reckless creation of new species, and so many inaccurate 
statements, should not be allowed to be published without the strongest 
protest being recorded. 
Zygena loti, Wien. Verz., versus Z. transalpina, Esper. 
By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 
Zygaena loti, Wien, Verz. 
Dr. Verity (ante p. 28 and 29) suggests that this name takes 
precedence over Z. transalpina, Esper. 
I am unfortunately unable to understand from his remarks why he 
comes to this conclusion—-he merely says it “ certainly is the little 
Central European subspecies of the same species,” viz., transalpina, 
This is his statement, but he does not tell us why he thinks so. 
Now what is loti in reality? It was created by Schiffermuller in 
the Vienna Cataloyue, was referred to by Hiibner and again by Haworth, 
whose labelled specimen is now in the Tring Museum. There is little 
doubt, however, that Esper’s figure, pl. 35, fig. 1, represents what he 
then considered to be loti, but other authors did not fake his view. 
The species figured by Hiibner, pl. xvii., fig. 82, is almost universally 
put down as meliloti. It is, however, quite different from Esper’s figure, 
which is without doubt a six spot species. 
Is it possible to consider that that figure represents any form of 
transalpina ? ; 
In my judgment Fam quite convinced that it has nothing to do 
with Hsper’s species (¢ransalpina). I have no doubt whatever 
that it is not transalpina. I have little doubt that it is 
jilipendulae, the shape of the insect and the hindwings point 
without any question to Linné’s species and not to LEsper’s 
—it represents a small specimen of the form in which each pair of 
spots is confluent, v7z., cytisi, Hb., and I have a specimen almost as 
small and just like it. Dr. Verity himself, in the paper I am 
discussing, gives us ‘an unmistakable character, . . . uno matter 
how similar to each other they may be,” viz., the position of the hind 
pair of spots which, he says, ‘‘in transalpina are always situated more 
outwardly, and a line drawn parallel to the body through these spots,” 
that is I suppose between them, “ does not pass through them, but in 
filipendulae it does pass through the outer spot.” 
This character settles the point at once, for regardless of 
the fact that the two spots are confluent in loti, Esper, their 
position is certainly that of jilipendulae -and not of transalpina. 
Again the hindwings, not only as to their margins, but taking 
into consideration the whole wing, are those of jfilipendilae, not 
of transalpina. It is over thirty years ago since I took my first alpina 
specimen of transalpina and also my first Piedmontese specimen, and 
it had from the beginning a fascination for me, so that I have always 
paid it extra attention, and I regret that I cannot possibly accept Dr. 
Verity’s proposal. 
In his last Catalog, 1901, Staudinger refers Esper’s loti to astragalt, 
Bkh., but the figure does not suit Borkhausen’s description. In the 
