162 ' THE entomologist's RECORD. 



the descriptions are top meagre and cover several species readily, that 

 in Fn. S. is prolix and may possibly refer to one of the darker forms 

 of contaminana, although the remarks of Zincken preclude even 

 this suggestion. The reference of Linne to Mad. Merian's Eur., i., is 

 of no avail, as the figures are quite unrecognisable. The remarks as 

 to sorbiana and pyru{a)strano all rest on " may-be." 



Exactly similar remarks apply to the 7\ arneriana of Linne, S.N., 

 X., Fn. S., and S.N'., xii., and the figures in bobh Merian, Fur., i., and 

 and Reaumur, Mem., ii., are equally unrecognisable as to specific 

 identity. 



It will also be seen that Fabricius, Sj). Ins., in., and Ent. Sys. 

 aiict., iii. (?) adds no further evidence. ■ 



The extreme variation in contaminana and the paucity of material 

 which Linne had access to (probably at most only two or three 

 specimens) leaves it quite possible that both rosana, L., and aweriana, 

 L., were forms of contaminana, Hiib. . 



The statement and fact upon which we are justified in relying so 

 far, are that the specimens in Schiffermiiller's collection labelled 

 rosana and arneriana were actually specimens of contaminana, and this 

 identification was confirmed much later by the identification of 

 Herrich-Schaffer, who also saw the identical specimens of the "W.V." 

 collection, 



Herrich-Schaffer, Sys. Bearb., vol. iv., p. 153 [1849] , says:— " The 

 W.V,^ p. 128, rosana, dog-rose Tortrix, is this species. There are two 

 specimens in the collection, one unset, yellow with somewhat 

 obliterated dark brown band, and one set, very bright yellow with very 

 dark brown band. 



"The TF. F., p. 128, am eriana, the sallow Tortrix. A good pale 

 yellow specimen, in place of the band it has only a reddish -brown 

 three cornered spot on the costa. Both species [rosana and arneriana) 

 Charpentier considers as contaminana, Hiib., 142, and Treitschke also 

 refers ciliana, Hiib., 171, as a variety of it. They are indeed rightly 

 contannnana, Hiib., 142." 



If we could directly connect and identify the rosana, W.V. (1776), 

 and the avieriana, W.V. (1776), with the Linne descriptions (1758,-61, 

 -67) we should have, according to the rule of priority, to allow the 

 name contaminana to fall, unless stronger evidence pointed to another 

 species included in the generality of Linne's description. Thus, after 

 very careful comparison and investigation of all references, figures, 

 descriptions, reviews, opinions, etc., it has been possible to collect, no 

 further evicence is forthcoming, and it seems practically impossible to 

 identify, with any degree of certainty, any of these early descriptions 

 with the insect so long called contaminana, Hb. 



There are, however, other of the older descriptions and names 

 which may with some degree of certainty apply here, one of which is 

 • the insect figured by De Geer, and referred to as — 



" Phalaena Pallium reticulatiim." Retzius. De Geer (Lister). 

 a-en. Sp. Ins., p. 61. J1783] . 



" Spirilinguis antennis filiformibus, alis rhombeis fuscis maculis 

 strigisque obscuris : inferioribus supra nigrescentibus, palpis recurvis." 

 (T. 2, p. 468. T. 1, p. 408, t. 27, f. 1-8, 11-14) (L.S.N. 876). 



Mr. Sich's remarks {in lit.), " De Geer's P. reticulatum seems to me 



