in my series have the row of dots marked, and one specimen out of 

 the six concolor I have has the spots absent. Herrich-Schaffer's fig. 

 337, which Doubleday states (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. iii, p. 257) " was 

 probably taken from one of my (Doubleday) specimens," is stated by 

 Newman, in his " British Moths," p. 275, to be " without the trans- 

 verse series of minute dots." This shows that Doubleday himself did 

 not consider the character vital. 



The remainder of Guenee's description would answer very well 

 for all pale specimens oifulva. 



The time of appearance presents a slight difficulty. Newman 

 and G-uenee both give June. My specimens were captured between 

 July 4th and 12th. I have taken typical fulva occasionally at the end 

 of July in other localities, and probably the species is double brooded 

 in sheltered localities, the first brood being rare. 



My conclusions, therefore, based on the above, are as follows : — 



(1) That concolor, Gn., is distinct from extrema, Hb. 



(2) That concolor, Gn., is a local, pale form of fulva, Hb. 



If any of our older Lepidopterists would prove the above views 

 wrong, I should be greatly obliged to him ; or if any one who knows 

 anything about the old British concolor agrees with these statements, 

 I should like to know. 



Ccenobia rufa, Haw., = despecta, Treit., Hb.-Geyer. 



In Stainton's " Manual," and the Doubleday List, this species is 

 known as despecta. In Newman's " British Moths," and Staudinger's 

 " Catalogue," it is called rufa. Mr. South, in "The Entomologist" 

 List, has followed the latter; whilst Guenee, in his " Noctuelites," 

 uses despecta, giving Haworth's rufa as a synonym with doubt. Mr. 

 Eobson, in the list he has published in the " Young Naturalist," 

 appears to have followed Guenee's synonymy. 



The description of Haworth's rufa (" Lepidoptera Britannica," 

 p. 200) is as follows : — " alis oblongis ciliisque rufis unicoloribus ; 

 posticis ciliisque pallidis striga medio macularum obscurarum." I 

 consider this a good description of the insect we get. Haworth then 

 goes on, " caput inter antennas album." I have a very long series, 

 and this statement can readily be verified if one turns the drawer 

 round with the heads of the insects towards one, and looks down the 

 series from top to bottom. The head is "between the antennae" de- 

 ' cidedly " white." Haworth then goes on, " Lingua et palpi Noctuarum, 

 potius quam Bombycum," of which I suppose its position in our 

 classification is a sufficient proof. Comparing it with lutescens, a 



