ACALLA RETICULATA, ITS HISTORY AND ITS VARIATION. 161 



Note by Zincken g. Som : " Hlibner's T. c »itaininana is in no way 

 the T. rosana, Linn. In the former the forewings are ' pallidae 

 ferrugineo reticulafcae,' the hindwings ' 7iive() Hericaae,' but Linne says 

 ' alae oinnes griseae seu dilute testaceae, tarn supra quani iiifra.' This 

 description is also given to T. sorbiana in which the forewings are 

 (schalten) blackish shade, black below, the hindwings black gray 

 (fuscae) above. To no Tortrix does the description fit better and more 

 generally than to the female of the Tortrix pi/mstraiui (!). Further 

 there is no figure of this known to me, to which I can refer, and 

 Hiibner has only depicted the male (fig. 124), which is quite different 

 from the female. Therefore Linne's description of the figure is 

 distinctly sufficient for the general appearance if only one considers the 

 words ' fascia obliqua ' not too rigidly, but as two rusty- brown lines in 

 which the intermediate space is somewhat darker only towards the 

 innermargin." 



Linne's description may have been from one of the forms of 

 containinaiia. Zincken's criticism appears well grounded. 



B. Charpentier (Zincken). Zun. Wick. Schab., etc., Verz. Wien., 

 p. 48. [1821.] 



" Schiff. W. v., p. 128, no. 11. Tort. amerimia = Tort. contaminana, 

 Hiib. 



" Here in Schiffermiiller's collection is found a very worn pale 

 example of T. rosana = contaniinana, Hiib. It is just like a pale 

 variety in which there is not even a slight trace of the obscure spot on 

 the margin. 



" Whether Linne's ameriana is possibly only a similar variety is 

 not ascertainable. He says in the ' Fauna ' under no. 1310 (where 

 aiiieriiia stands for aiiteriana, but which in the Sijs. Nat. (xii. — H. J.T.) 

 is cited with the use of the same diagnosis under the no. 1310 as 

 ameriana) ' Simillima rosanae." But the words ' litura cominunis 

 ferruginea " appear to betoken another species. 



" Fig. 6 and 7 in Reaiuuur, vol. ii., pit. 18, which Linne cites, 

 is quite unrecognisable, even in the quarto edition. So also are the 

 figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of plate 15 of vol. ii., of which Fabricius 

 remarks: 'These probably depict several species.'" These remarks are 

 quite justified. 



Zincken g. Sommer remarks : " The T. amerina, Linn., I believe 

 I recognise in Hiibs. fig. 124, S T. pijrustrana. The words ' simillima 

 rosanae — alae retusae — -litura communi ferruginea" leave it as very 

 conjectural. I must here note that the ' litura communis ferruginea ' 

 which extend not far from the bend of the inner margin somewhat 

 obliquely to the middle of the wing area, in Hubner's figure run quite 

 up to the costa, and here form with the ' litura ' a ' fascia ' or ' striga ' 

 which never occurs thus in this Tortrix." 



C. Charpentier (Zincken). Zun. Wick. Schab., etc., Verz. Wien., 

 p. 59. [1821.] 



"Schiff. W.V., p. 128, no 7. T. rhoiiibana = T. rhombana, 

 Hiib., 173." 



It will be seen from the examination of the various works to which 

 we have referred that the T. rosana of Linne, S.N., x., Fn. S. and 

 8.N., xii., may or may not refer to the species which Hiibner 

 subsequently called coyitaniinana . While in S'.iV., x., and S.N., xii., 



