NOTES ON TEPHROSIA BISTORTATA AND T. CREPUSCULARIA. 9 
middle of May and the last of July; whereas most persons choose 
August as the time of their Swiss tour, a month which is, except for 
those who come for mountaineering, in every way the least desirable 
of the twelve. For the botanist, the entomologist, the artist, and for 
all who appreciate natural beauty and grandeur, the late spring and 
early summer are greatly preferable. 
Further notes on Tephrosia bistortata and T. crepuscularia. 
By L. B. PROUT, F.E.S. 
As it seems to have been a special mission of the Hntomologist’s 
Record for some years past to clear up the complications connected with 
Tephrosia bistortata and T. crepuscularia, I offer no apology for the 
following notes, which are designed to supplement those in Hntom. 
Record, vili., pp. 76, 308. 
In the first place, I sympathise with the spirit of Dr. Riding’s 
‘“‘ protest’? (Hntom. Record, x., p. 145) against the restoration of the 
name crepuscularia to Hubner’s species ; it certainly is very annoying 
to find that Plebeius aegon is the true P. arqus, Corenia unidentaria the 
true C. ferrugata, and so on; and it is a corresponding satisfaction to 
find that evidence favours the retention of the traditional use of 
Linné’s name of hyale, and that a fairly good case, at least, can be 
made out against Mr. Kirby’s application of the name menthastri to 
our ‘ Buff ermine.” But in the case of crepuscularia, I really do not 
see that Dr. Riding has any serious ground for complaint ; Stainton’s 
Manual, Mr. Briggs, Mr. F. N. Pierce, and others had the name 
correctly applied before I wrote; and it was only a section of the 
British entomologists to whom the correction came as an innovation. 
Where two usages are in conflict, surely the right one is to be 
accepted, even by those who believe that in some cases the ‘law of 
usage should override the law of priority.” 
I find from some notes in Jris, x., pp. 58 et seq. (1897) that Dr. 
Staudinger really understands these two Tephrosias a little better than 
his Cataloy led me to think. He has not even yet forgotten that 
Doubleday (in litt.) insisted on their specific distinctness, and in 
the note before me he admits that this is ‘very probable; ’”’ 
this ig a great concession from an entomologist who inclines 
to “lump” Caradrina alsines and C. taravaci, Cerastis vaccinit 
and CU. ligula, Caria truncata and C. immanata, Coremia ferrugata 
and CU. spadicearia, &c. He does not go into the question of their 
distinctive characters, but remarks that in all his long series of 
“biundularia”’ females (in Doubleday’s sense) the long ovipositor 
projects more or less (often a long way), but only in one (Scotch) 
specimen of his many “ crepuscularia.” Of course this is not a very 
important matter, as he does not hint that the former species has 
actually a longer ovipositor ; but I think even differences of habit are 
not entirely without significance when found constant, or nearly so, in 
a very large number of individuals. On examining my own very 
limited material, I find a curious result ; the first brood bistortata and 
the crepuscularia agree very well with Staudinger’s observations, but 
quite a number of the second brood bistortata protrude the ovipositor 
some considerable distance. Perhaps Mr. Barrett will find herein 
confirmation of his theory that ‘ second brood erepuscularia is biundu- 
laria.” 
