﻿272 
  

  

  BRITISH 
  LEPIDOPTERA. 
  

  

  the 
  name 
  ' 
  acanthodactyla,* 
  though 
  these 
  latter 
  figures 
  do 
  riot 
  show 
  the 
  

   shape 
  of 
  the 
  wings 
  at 
  all 
  accurately, 
  making 
  the 
  costa 
  decidedly 
  too 
  

   much 
  arched, 
  and 
  the 
  wings 
  too 
  short 
  in 
  proportion 
  to 
  their 
  breadth. 
  

   In 
  Fletcher's 
  copy 
  of 
  'Hiibner' 
  (which 
  formerly 
  belonged 
  to 
  Zeller, 
  and 
  

   bears 
  his 
  identifications 
  written 
  below 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  names 
  on 
  the 
  plates, 
  

   though 
  not 
  below 
  the 
  names 
  in 
  question), 
  the 
  colours 
  alone, 
  poor 
  as 
  

   they 
  are, 
  would 
  suggest 
  the 
  above 
  determinations, 
  for 
  figs. 
  23-24 
  

   recall 
  the 
  unmistakable 
  olive-brown 
  livery, 
  characteristic 
  of 
  puncti- 
  

   dactyla, 
  Haw., 
  more 
  uniform 
  than 
  that 
  of 
  acanthodactyla, 
  Tr., 
  while 
  

   fig. 
  35 
  (fig. 
  36 
  only 
  shows 
  the 
  underside) 
  exhibits, 
  in 
  places, 
  and 
  

   especially 
  on 
  the 
  basal 
  two 
  -thirds 
  of 
  the 
  forewings, 
  the 
  equally 
  

   unmistakable 
  ruddy 
  hue 
  of 
  acanthodactyla, 
  Tr., 
  which 
  is 
  never 
  found 
  

   in 
  punctidactyla. 
  But, 
  ignoring 
  colour 
  altogether, 
  the 
  markedly 
  pro- 
  

   duced 
  apex, 
  the 
  produced 
  tornus, 
  and 
  the 
  shape 
  and 
  prominence 
  of 
  the 
  

   large 
  dorsal 
  scale-tooth 
  of 
  the 
  forewing, 
  together 
  with 
  the 
  shape 
  and 
  

   prominence 
  of 
  the 
  dorsal 
  scale-tooth 
  of 
  the 
  hind"wing, 
  prove 
  conclusively, 
  

   in 
  my 
  opinion, 
  that 
  figs. 
  23-24 
  can 
  only 
  be 
  meant 
  for 
  punclidactyla, 
  Haw., 
  

   whereas 
  the 
  less 
  produced 
  apex 
  and 
  tornus 
  and 
  the 
  less 
  conspicuous 
  

   dorsal 
  scale-tooth 
  of 
  the 
  forewing, 
  with 
  the 
  broader 
  and 
  shorter 
  dorsal 
  

   scale-tooth 
  of 
  the 
  hindwing, 
  prove, 
  with 
  equal 
  certainty, 
  that 
  figs. 
  

   35-36 
  cannot 
  be 
  intended 
  to 
  represent 
  punctidactyla, 
  Haw., 
  and 
  remind 
  

   one 
  so 
  strongly 
  of 
  acanthodactyla, 
  Tr.. 
  that, 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  the 
  incorrect 
  

   shape 
  of 
  the 
  wing, 
  one 
  feels 
  justified 
  in 
  accepting 
  these 
  figures 
  as 
  

   meant 
  for 
  this 
  species. 
  You 
  will 
  note 
  that 
  my 
  conclusions 
  are 
  

   identical 
  with 
  your 
  own. 
  as 
  set 
  forth 
  in 
  Ent. 
  Bee, 
  xi., 
  pp. 
  238-9, 
  

   and 
  Fletcher 
  (in 
  litt.) 
  has 
  come 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  conclusion." 
  Fletcher 
  

   writes 
  (April 
  2nd, 
  1906) 
  : 
  " 
  Hiibner's 
  figs. 
  35-36 
  are 
  most 
  clumsily 
  

   drawn, 
  but 
  s-how 
  some 
  tufts 
  on 
  the 
  inner 
  margins 
  of 
  the 
  wings. 
  If 
  we 
  

   are 
  to 
  divide 
  figs. 
  23-24, 
  and 
  figs. 
  35-36, 
  between 
  the 
  two 
  species, 
  I 
  think 
  

   the 
  one 
  we 
  have 
  known 
  as 
  punctidactyla 
  must 
  take 
  figs. 
  23-24, 
  on 
  the 
  

   ground 
  that 
  the 
  apices 
  and 
  anal 
  angles 
  of 
  the 
  wings 
  are 
  most 
  sharply 
  

   produced 
  in 
  these 
  figures, 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  general 
  colouring 
  of 
  the 
  fore- 
  

   wings 
  and 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  blotchings 
  do 
  not 
  differ 
  much 
  in 
  intensity, 
  

   whilst 
  that 
  which 
  we 
  have 
  known 
  as 
  acanthodactyla 
  will 
  have 
  to 
  go 
  

   with 
  the 
  ill-drawn 
  figs. 
  35-36, 
  so 
  that 
  Tutt's 
  verdict 
  (Ent. 
  Rec, 
  xi., 
  

   p. 
  238) 
  stands. 
  The 
  colour 
  of 
  figs. 
  23-24 
  is 
  bad 
  ; 
  still 
  there 
  is 
  the 
  

   uniformity 
  in 
  intensity 
  shown." 
  One 
  doubts 
  very 
  much 
  whether 
  our 
  

   punctidactyla 
  was 
  really 
  well-known 
  to 
  the 
  majority 
  of 
  continental 
  lepi- 
  

   dopterists; 
  and 
  one 
  supposes 
  that, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  his 
  knowledge 
  went, 
  Zeller's 
  

   contention 
  that 
  cosmodactyla, 
  Hb., 
  was 
  simply 
  a 
  form 
  of 
  acanthadactyla, 
  

   Hb., 
  was, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  concerned 
  most 
  continental 
  specimens 
  passing 
  under 
  

   the 
  former 
  name, 
  quite 
  true. 
  (On 
  this 
  point 
  see 
  Walsingham, 
  Pter. 
  

   Gal. 
  Oreg., 
  p. 
  24.) 
  Frey, 
  after 
  stating 
  (Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Zeitg., 
  1886, 
  p. 
  62) 
  

   that 
  Zeller 
  could 
  not 
  discriminate 
  specifically 
  between 
  cosmodactyla, 
  

   Hb., 
  and 
  acanthadactyla, 
  Hb., 
  says, 
  in 
  distinguishing 
  these 
  two 
  forms 
  

   from 
  his 
  stachydalis 
  and 
  calaminthae, 
  that 
  all 
  the 
  Amblyptilia 
  forms 
  

   described 
  are 
  brown, 
  i.e., 
  acanthodactyla 
  — 
  brown 
  mixed 
  with 
  red, 
  cosmo- 
  

   dactyla= 
  chestnut-brown, 
  stachydalis 
  = 
  \ighi 
  yellow-brown, 
  calaminthae 
  

   = 
  light 
  grey 
  ; 
  so 
  that 
  his 
  preceding 
  note 
  on 
  stachydalis 
  (Stett. 
  Ent. 
  Ztn., 
  

   1871, 
  p. 
  121) 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  of 
  a 
  bright 
  olive-brown 
  hue, 
  might 
  lead 
  one 
  to 
  

   suppose 
  that 
  his 
  term 
  "olive-brown 
  " 
  was 
  only 
  "yellow-brown." 
  and 
  not 
  

   really 
  greenish, 
  as 
  in 
  our 
  best-coloured 
  punctidactyla, 
  if 
  bis 
  types 
  were 
  

   not 
  really 
  specially 
  brightly-coloured 
  examples 
  ; 
  whilst 
  his 
  remark 
  that 
  

  

  