109 



If you were to ask me to define exactly why I considered that 

 this moth was not a variety of Z. trifolii I could hardly tell you. 

 The points were such as strike a specialist, but are not very clearly 

 capable of definition, but this is the case with many well recognised 

 species of Burnets. I know the great variation in size which exists 

 in Z. trifolii, and although the largest of our trifolii are but as 

 pigmies compared with some specimens of this mountain form, I 

 must confess that the insect to which I should have referred it, 

 were it certainly referable to a British species, would have been, as 

 I have already stated, lonicerce, the large specimens of that species 

 captured by the Rev. W, F. Johnson, near Armagh, being the 

 nearest approach to it. Still, this apparent similarity might be due, 

 perhaps, to an approximation in size, and it was rather the structural 

 peculiarities presented in the shape of the fore-wings and the de- 

 velopment of the antennas which impressed me most forcibly with 

 its distinctness. 



After we entered the Dora Valley we did not meet with the 

 species again for a week. Then it occurred in considerable 

 numbers, although rather worn, on the thistles, which grew well up 

 the Val Chapy that lies between Mont Corniet and Mont de la Saxe; 

 some four or five miles from Courmayeur. Later, Dr. Chapman 

 found the species high on the Crammont, and afterwards I found 

 it in the Cogne Valley, near Champlong. Everything I observed 

 about the species tended to confirm my previous belief, and I am 

 perfectly satisfied, in my own mind, that Z. medicaginis {ditbia) is 

 not specifically identical with our Zygcena trifolii. It is, of course, 

 a very near relative of trifolii, but I would impress upon you once 

 more the fact that its affinities are still more strongly with lonicercE. 

 All three species belong to the five-spotted group, and only on very 

 rare occasions do they offer any variation from the normal number 

 of spots. 



Staudinger treats this as a variety or local race, and does not 

 apparently know of its existence as an aberration. This, in itself, 

 is a strong and valuable point upon my side of the question. Its 

 restricted area, too, is very remarkable. Staudinger localises it in 

 " the Southern Alpine Valleys, Pyrenees and, doubtfully, from 

 Greece." How much differentiation it has undergone we can 

 hardly say, but everything points to the fact that it has evolved 

 through lonicerce rather than through trifolii. 



But this is not the only difficulty that occurs (to me, at least) in 

 regard to this species. Staudinger says, in his diagnosis of dubia, 

 which I have before quoted, " with five or six spots on the fore- 

 wings." Now, the large species to which I have been referring as 

 medicaginis {dubia), and which Professor Blachier (whom I find to 

 be an excellent authority on Alpine insects) sent me as dubia, has 

 five spots, and five spots only, on the anterior wings, nor had any 

 of the many specimens which I saw and captured, and which were 

 evidently specifically identical with Professor Blachier's specimens 



