° 
ZYGHNA LOTI, WIEN. VERZ., VERSUS TRANSALPINA, ESPER. ts 
same (ataloy Staudinger refers loti, Hb., to meliloti, but in as much 
as Htibner himself at p.118 of the Verzeivhniss puts achilleac, Esper, 
as a synonym of loti, it is evident that both references cannot be 
right. 
Let us, however, turn to some of the old authors. Fabricius (fMnt. 
Syst. p. 387) calls it lott, Wien. Verz., and he places as synonyms 
fulvia, (Mant. Ins.), and lonicerae, Ksper’s plate 24, fig. 1. He does not 
however refer at all to Hsper’s plate 35. 
Haworth’s lott is a five spot species and his type (if I may call it 
so) is now in the Tring Museum. 
Stephens also considered loti to be a five spot species, which he 
* placed after trifolit, Hsp., and described it as considerably larger than 
that species, while his diagnosis is an excellent one of lonicerae. 
Samouelle in his Calendar calls it the five spotted Burnet and 
quotes Haworth. 
Stephens in his systematic catalogue revises his illustrated 
work, for at p. 29, vol. ii., he refers the loti of Hubner to 
meliloti; under his No. 5908 he gives loti as a species, referring to 
it the records of Fabricius, Haworth, Stephen’s Ill., Donovan, and 
Ksper’s plate 24 in vol. i1., figs. 1, a and b, which latter Esper called 
lonicerae. 
On the same page he, Stephens, gives hippocrepidis as bis next 
Species and under it gives loti, Hsper, pl. 35, fig. 1, as a synonym. 
Herrich-Shaffer in vol. i1., p. 387, quotes loti as a synonym of 
angelicae. 
It seems almost needless to go further. We evidently have two 
species under the name loti. The original of the Vienna catalogue 
and of Hiibner seems to me to be correctly referred to meliloti, whilst 
that of Hsper is certainly something different and after comparing all 
that I can find on this species I feel sure we shall be right in referring 
it to filipendulae form eytist, and as I said previously | have a speci- 
men from which the figure might almost have been taken. 
In the same paper Dr. Verity (p. 29) proposes to supersede trans- 
alpina var. alpina, Boisd., by alpicola, Verity, but by so doing he is 
creating a pure synonym, for it 1s quite valid to have Zygaena filipen- 
dulae, race alpina, and Zygaena transalpina, race alpina. The two 
insects are two quite distinct species and therefore the name alpina 
can be correctly used as a sub-species of each. It may be, however, 
that Dr. Verity considers transalpina 1s merely a form of filivendulae ; 
as I believe be does with lonicerae and trifolii, but in this case I come 
into direct conflict with his conclusions, for the genitalia prove quite 
conclusively that they are not the same species, the tegumen is very 
different in shape and structure, whilst the armature of the edoeagus 
is also markedly diverse. 
In another case, that. of transalpina ab. zickerti, Hoffman, Dr. 
Verity apparently proposes to sink the name zickerti to his latina. 
He says ‘‘most specimens thus belong to the yellow calabrica, 
called zickerti by Hoffman, but I think that to use the name of a single 
very special form for such a variable race would only lead to confusion, 
and both Querei and I have agreed to give it a geographical name.” 
If, as I understand from this paragraph, zickerti is the same form 
as latina, and if, as I also understand from the same paragraph (for I 
have been unable to trace any reference to Hoffman’s name; it is not 
