THE SYNONYMY OF SOME OF THE EMERALD MOTHS, 181 
synonymy of the Clematis HKmerald. The Linnean description reads 
as follows 
“Ph. G. vernaria. Pectinicornis, alis viridibus: strigis duabus albis repandis, 
antennis apice setaceis. Praecedenti [lactearia] simillima, sed alae pallide vires- 
centes strigis duabus, albis. repandis: altera versus postica. Subtus tota pallidior. 
Accedit ad Ph. viridatam. Hab, in Dalekarlia, C. Blom.” (Linn., F. S., ed. ii., 
». 323). 
ie Fb., “Syst. Ent.,” p. 685 (1775).—Wernebure areues 
that this represents the species now under consideration, but Staudinger 
denies this with a ‘‘ certo,’ and as the first author who dealt with the 
name, 7.c., Borkhausen, plausibly determined it for virtdata, Linn., 
and his determination has never been proved erroneous, it seems to me 
inadmissible to take up the name volutata for our Clematis Emerald ; 
yet Wernebure’s view obtained a little support from a source Which he 
was apparently not able to investigate, for Fabricius (*‘ Spec. Ins.,”” ii, 
p. 262) cites, though with a ?, ‘‘ Harris,” tab. 8, fig. 8, 7.e., of Harris’ 
“ Exposition,’ ' where the Clematis species 1s represented. The Fabrician 
description reads as follows : 
“Ph. volutata. Seticornis, alis omnibus viridibus, strigis duabus albis. Hab. 
in Germania. Corpus et alae yiridia. Strigz duz lineares, anteriore obsoletiore : 
subtus striga unica obsoleta”’ (Fab., Syst. Hnt., p. 635). 
Ajruginaria, Bork., ‘‘ Hur. Schmett.,” v. 48 (1794).—This is 
quite certainly=vernarta, Auct. (nee Linn.), but it rests on a reference 
to aeruginaria, Schiff., which is just as certainly not this species; 
Schiffermitiller was too good an entomologist to have named a non- 
variable species like this twice, and, moreover, he places his aeruginaria 
between putataria and lactearia, which would have led to the suspicion 
that it was a green lactearia, even if Treitschke had not later (on the 
evidence of the Vienna collection) stated this to be the case. *Hrugi- 
naria, Bork., must, therefore, be set aside as invalid. 
Chrysoprasaria, Esp., v., figs. 1-4 (1794).—Here at leneth we come 
upon an admissible and by no means inappropriate name which should 
henceforward be adopted for the species ; it may or may not be prior 
to Borkhausen’s acruginaria, but the question is of no importance. 
§ Lucidata, Don., 111., p. 67, pl. xevii (1794).—This was erected in 
the same year as the Dee! but as it collides with Phalaena lucidata, 
Fb., ‘ Spec. Ins.,”’ 11., p. 259 (1781) it cannot be adopted, even if it 
can be shown to ee priority. 
3. Geometra (Hemithea) strigata, Mull.—I have a strong suspicion 
that this species is the true vernaria of Linné, but as his description is 
defective, and has led Werneburg and Staudinger to determine it for 
ereen lactearia (the earlier name having been founded on faded, colour- 
less examples), I do not venture to restore it—especially as its 
application also to chrysoprasaria, Ksp., tends to deepen the confusion. 
Linné’s type specimen of vernaria, which bears the appearance of 
being authentic, is certainly a small striyata, Mull. The other names 
to be considered in connection with this species are: 
Viridata, Linn., ‘‘ Syst. Nat.,” edit. x (1758).—Wernebure argues 
at ereat length that this is really=striyata, Mull., but his arguments 
are so weak that I will not even waste space in quoting them. 
Scopoli in 1763, Schiffermtller in 1775, and a host of others, rightly 
recognised Linné’s species, and his type is still extant, confirming the 
identification. Viridata, Linn., nee Wrnbe., therefore, stands for the 
species sc named by Tr., Gn., Stgr. et auct. 
