228 [March, 



RABUN A ALBIFUSA, GROTE, IN GREAT BRITAIN. 

 BY JOHN B. SMITH. 



In the January No. of the Magazine appeared an article on the 

 above matter, which requires some additional information, and perhaps 

 correction. The record of the capture of a foreign insect should 

 never be made without the most careful investigation. In this case 

 the circumstances of the capture of the insect are sufficiently certain, 

 but with all due respect to the eminent entomologists who made the 

 conclusions, they are not entirely warranted. In the first place, Mr. 

 Grote never described any Hadena albifusa, though Mr. Walker did 

 in the Cat. Brit. Mus., Noct., p. 753. This would have been unim- 

 portant, but in Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci., i, 104, Mr. Grote referred 

 this species of Walker's to JKamestra trifolii, = clienopodii, a species 

 common all over Europe, and I believe in England as well. In America 

 the species is, as a rule, very uniform in colour, rarely becoming as 

 brightly marked as in the specimen described by Mr. Barrett. It is 

 rather variable otherwise, but within the same limits shown by the 

 series of European specimens seen by me. Mr. Kirby is probably 

 correct in the identification of the form as albifusa, but as albifusa is 

 but a form of a common European species, and a form not geo- 

 graphical, the specimen collected by Major Partridge has its origin 

 either on the continent, or what is more probable, it is a somewhat 

 aberrant form, such as sometimes occurs everywhere, especially in 

 species that are known to vary. 



As an example of peculiar local occurrences, may serve a speci- 

 men received by me for determination some years ago. This was a 

 perfect specimen, very familiar in appearance to me, but which I failed 

 absolutely in identifying with any North American form. As a last 

 resort, I looked over my European specimens, and at once recognised 

 Pseudopliia illunaris. There was not a particle of difference. I at 

 once wrote to my correspondent at Chicago, and afterwards questioned 

 him personally. He assured me that he had captured the specimen in 

 his garden at sugar, and that it had all the appearance of a freshly 

 hatched specimen. He never took another, nor have I ever heard of 

 another having been taken. 



This occurrence is the more remarkable, as Chicago is so far 

 inland, and the place where the specimen was taken is not near the 

 Lake shore. 



Washington, D. C. : January, 1889. 



