1888.] 53 



Turning to the Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. iii, p. 257, we have some 

 remarks by Mr. Doubleday, a quotation of Treitschke to Zeller, and 

 one from Zeller to Doubleday, as to the probability of Bondii, Ivngs., 

 not being extrema, Hb., and the certainty (based on Treitschke's 

 statements after he had seen the originals of Hubner's extrema) that 

 Bondii was a distinct species. Whether this is so or not none of us 

 can say, unless we can see the type ; but as Guenee, Staudinger, &c, 

 take this view as correct, the name (Bondii) will stand, irrespective of 

 fig. 412, Hb., which to me seems nothing but a badly figured Bondii. 



But with regard to Dr. Staudinger's conclusion that concolor, Gn., 

 = extrema, Hb., I disagree entirely, and I fail to see how (if Dr. 

 Staudinger saw English specimens) he came to this conclusion. Ex- 

 trema, Hb., may not = Bondii, Kngs., but it is still more certain that 

 the former does not = concolor, Gn. 



"With regard to the latter species (concolor), I believe that all the 

 specimens in continental collections are British, certainly those that 

 Guenee named the species from were British, and came from Mr. 

 Doubleday, for he says, "England, in the commencement of June. 

 Still rare ;" and this is his only locality (Guenee's " Noctuelites," vol. 

 v, p. 104). 



Mr. Doubleday's explanation of Herrich-Schaffer's fig. 337 shows 

 that this was probably drawn from an English specimen (Ent. Mo. 

 Mag., vol. iii, p. 257). This figure, in accordance with his views of 

 extrema, Hb., Dr. Staudinger refers to that species. As Mr. Doubleday 

 remarks (Ent. Mo. Mag , vol. iii, p. 257), "If the above quoted state- 

 ment of Treitschke (who saw the original extrema, Hb.) is correct," 

 i. e., his description as quoted in the above mentioned extract, " then 

 concolor cannot be extrema.'''' Therefore I think, on Treitschke's 

 showing, Staudinger's nomenclature must be wrong, and that Hubner's 

 extrema certainly is not our English concolor. 



Now with regard to concolor. I believe the species has not been 

 captured for some years. I have seen the Doubleday specimens, and 

 could never understand why they were not an extreme form of fulva. 

 During July, 1885, 1886, and 1887, I captured, in the first and second 

 weeks of that month, one or two specimens each year, which are 

 Doubleday's and Guenee's concolor undoubtedly. I have only six in 

 all, two are a most perfect reproduction of Guenee's description of the 

 type, in fact, he might have written his description from them, it de- 

 scribes them so perfectly. 



Dr. Staudinger gives as localities for extrema, Hb., which he says 



