| gnramologists 
eg 
JOURNAL OF VARIATION. 
Wore Soll Now 4: Apri 15TH, 1900. 
Phibalapteryx aquata as a British species. 
By L. B. PROUT, F.E.S. 
I am naturally much pleased at the addition of another member of 
my favourite family, the Larenttidae, to our British list (anted, p. 35), 
and should like to add a little to what Mr. Tutt has published. When 
he approached me on the subject of this species, I had so much work 
on hand that I was only able to tell him just what occurred to me on 
the spur of the moment. I see from Tugwell’s sale catalogue (January 
20th, 1896, lot 51) that one of the specimens of aquata to which I 
alluded was included in ‘‘ Vitalbata 5, bred by self, fine white vars.,” and 
Mr. Moberly tells us that he bought this lot. 1t would be interesting 
to know whether the ‘fine white vars.” (?.e., aguata) or only the typical 
vitalbata with them, were bred by Mr. Tugwell himself. I presume 
the one which Dr. Sequeira got, was in lot 52, where there were 
‘“« Vitalbata 7, bred by self, 1 pale var.” (sold for 5s., though including 
three fine pale vars. of Cidaria corylata, &c., &e.). The aquata would 
probably have reached a much higher price if a whisper had not gone 
round in the sale room that they were not vitalbata vars, at all, but a 
‘“‘ foreign species.”’ In view, however, of Mr. Tutt’s circumstantial 
record, there seems no reason to doubt the bona sides of Mr. Tugwell’s 
examples also. 
Mr. Tutt says he cannot “see any real distinction between aquata 
and vitalbata, except the difference in the ground colour.” I must say 
the two had never struck me as being exceptionally similar—probably 
because I have never seen intermediate vars. of either—and I was 
astounded when I saw the aquata in Tugwell’s cabinet posing as 
vitalbata vars. But now that the resemblance has once been pointed 
out to me, I confess that I can see that it is tolerably close. I may 
remark, however, that aquata is a smaller insect (generally much 
smaller), lacks the dorsal darkening of the abdomen, has the lines 
outside the central area decidedly straighter, perhaps also a somewhat 
differently shaped wing. Aurivillius says that the g genitalia differ 
from those of vitalbata. 
The early stages have been described by Rossler (Wien. Ent. 
Monats., vi., p. 180), but unfortunately he does not give a side-by-side 
comparison with those of vitalbata, and though I have several times 
bred the latter, [am afraid I have no notes sufliciently minute to be 
of use in furnishing any differential characters. I quote what Rossler 
says, as it may aid in making comparisons in the coming season. He 
