ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 61 



A BIT OF HISTORY. 

 By J. Alston Moffat, London, Ont. 



Early in 1898 the Rev. Dr. Bethune had received an enquiry from Mr. H. Bird, of 

 Rye, N.Y., concerning certain specimens in the Society's collection. The Doctor nat- 

 urally referred him to me. Shortly after I received from Mr. Bird a letter enquiring if 

 Hydrcecia appassionato, Harvey, was represented amongst the species of that genius in 

 our collection. I replied that it was not, and that I suspected that there was but one 

 specimen of it extant ; and that one was in the the British Museum ; and that a re-dis- 

 covery of it would be a matter of very great interest ; and this opinion I afterwards 

 found was also entertained by Mr. Bird. 



This Hydrcecia appasionata, Harvey, is a species that was taken at London, by Mr. 

 E. Baynes Reed, and described by Dr. Leon F. Harvey in the August number of the 

 Canadian Entomologist for the year 1876, page 155, under the generic title "Gortyna." 

 The date of the description indicating that the capture had been made the previous year 

 at the latest. There is no mention made of the number of specimens taken, or upon 

 which the description was made ; the presumption is, that it was a unique. At all 

 events, a type specimen had gone into Mr. Grote's collection ; Mr. Grote's collection went 

 to the British Museum, and that specimen went with it, and there I presume it is now. 

 It has generally been considered that some of the species of this genus are rather variable 

 and run closely into each other. Reference is made by Mr. Bird in his paper (Can. Ent. 

 Vol. 30, p. 130) to the difficulty that seems to have been experienced by the describes 

 in deciding to which species certain forms belonged. Guenee is reported as considering 

 Marginidens Guen and Limpida Guen as possible varities of Rutila Guen, whilst Walker 

 regarded Marginidens as a doubtful variety of hucostigma. i have read somewhere a 

 statement made by Dr. J. B. Smith, that as the genus then sto<xl a specimen might be 

 yellow or mouse-colored, with or without spots and yet be the same species. Dr. Smith 

 had been convinced that the genus was in a most unsatisfactoy condition and wanted re- 

 vision, and he undertook the task. The first thing to be done was to get as much ma- 

 terial together for study as possible, so early in the year he requested the loan of the 

 Society's specimens of that genus for comparison. I replied, that then they would have 

 to be sent by express, and that he would remember that the unreasonable demands of the 

 U. S. Custom officers had erected an effectual barrier to anything more being sent in that 

 way. I sent to him a list of the genus as it was represented in the Society's drawers, 

 and from these he choose those he wanted most to see, and they were sent to him by 

 mail. Amongst them were three specimens which I had under the specific name 

 " Rutila," One was from my former Hamilton collection. Another was taken by Mr. 

 C. G. Anderson, of London, in 1895. And as it did not correspond to anything I could 

 find, it was sent for determination and returned as " Rutila." The other was a specimen 

 taken by Mr. Bice in 1896, of which he took several that season, and as I could not 

 identify it, I sent it also for a name, which was also returned as "Rutila." This I con- 

 sidered was an illustrious example of the variability of the species, and quite confirma- 

 tory of Dr. Smith's statement already referred to. 



In due time the specimens were returned with Dr. Smith's determination of the 

 various forms attached to them. In his letter to me of August 15th, 1898, announcing 

 his returning the specimens he remarks : " The specimen of Appasionata is the only 

 decent example known to me in collections. Circumlucens is a new species of which 

 there are only a few other examples known to me. So, though the lot was small it was 

 not without interest." So there had been an example of the long lost Appasionata in 

 the collection and I did not know it. This specimen of H. Appasionata, Harvey is 

 Anderson's capture of 1895. H. Circumlucens, Smith, is the specimen from my old 

 Hamilton collection, and "Rutila" is the 1896 capture of Mr. Bice. It would then ap- 

 pear as if "Rutila " had been a kind of general repository for anything that was known 

 not to belong elsewhere. I believe there are two or three other specimens of H. Appa 

 sionata, Harvey in collections in London. 



