﻿1869.] 35 



it as new under the name " concolor." This English species, which, since the 

 draining of the fens, where it formerly occurred, has not now for many years been 

 met with in England, has now been found, as I learn on good authority, near 

 Berlin, in Silesia, near Vienna, and in Hungary. There seems, therefore, no doubt 

 that it frequents all similar marshy localities, consequently would be found at the 

 Rhine, and the Main, whence Treitschke obtained it, unless there also the marshy 

 ground has been drained. 



Now what did I find in Treitschke' s collection with the name extrema ? Two 

 indubitable specimens of concolor. In Ochsenheimer's collection were two old, 

 bad specimens, the upper one being a $ fulva, Hb., the lower one, in very bad 

 condition, seemed tolerably surely to be Guenee' s concolor ; the label written by 

 Ochsenbeimer himself, stands thus — 



" Fulva, Hb. <? 

 Extrema, Hb. ? " 



This agrees precisely with what Ochsenheimer says in his vol. iv., p. 82, and 

 which Treitschke vol. v., p. 313, takes for an error. 



Treitschke hardly appears to have known the red form of Tap. fluxa, the fulva 

 of Hubner, and it is quite a matter of indifference whether in Hubner's fig. 413 he 

 sees a $ or a ? ■> since to my fancy this figure is incorrect, and does not suit either 

 for fluxa or fulva, of which last name Hubner has given an excellent representation 

 at fig. 496. 



Since amongst hundreds of fluxa and fulva, I never saw a specimen with 

 perceptible reniform stigma, such as Hubner's fig. 413 decidedly shews, I would 

 rather consider it as a variety of a red Hellmanni, which always shews the reniform 

 stigma, and which species is now found not uncommonly near Berlin, Brunswick, 

 in Silesia, &c Yet Hubner's figure is too bad to allow of our imposing his name 

 fluxa on our present Hellmanni. But at all events, we may now without hesitation 

 understand by the extrema of Hubner, the concolor of Guenee, a species which 

 appears to vary very much, and probably only when worn or faded occurs as white, 

 as Hubner's figure or Herrich-Schaffer's fig. 337, of which colour I have a wasted <? . 

 On the other hand, my $ which is quite fine is yellowish (bone-coloured) somewhat 

 powdered with grey, just as Guenee describes it. As through the kindness of Mr. 

 Henry Doubleday, I have also had typical specimens of concolor here for compari- 

 son, there can be no doubt about the identities of my species. 



After I had written the above, my friend A. Rogenhofer, Custos of the Imperial 

 Museum at Vienna, on the occasion of the Naturforscher Versammlung here, 

 brought me the extrema from the Museum collection. This specimen came out of 

 Mazzola's collection, and there seems no reason to doubt that it is the original 

 specimen figured by Hubner (fig. 412). It is nearest to a whitish female concolor, 

 Gn., but certainly with blackish cilia, almost precisely like Hubner's figure. My 

 friend Rogenhofer had the notion that the creature whilst drying its wings, &c, 

 came against some sooty object, and if I am not mistaken, Professor Zeller, who 

 had previously examined the insect at Vienna, was of the same opinion. But under 

 the microscope I could find no dark extraneous atoms (only dust) on the scales ; 

 indeed it rather appeared to me that a great many of the scales in the cilia and 

 near the hind margin had naturally a dark edging. 



Quite recently I obtained a $ Notodonta bicolora, of which the white of the 



