﻿CKOMBRUGGHIA 
  DISTANS. 
  457 
  

  

  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  Barrett 
  to 
  identify 
  some 
  British 
  specimens 
  of 
  distant 
  

   as 
  laetus, 
  and 
  in 
  this 
  he 
  followed, 
  and 
  was 
  followed 
  by, 
  a 
  good 
  

   many 
  of 
  our- 
  leading 
  lepidopterists. 
  Facts, 
  however, 
  though 
  difficult 
  

   to 
  seize 
  and 
  define, 
  were 
  too 
  strong 
  to 
  admit 
  of 
  this 
  conclusion 
  stand- 
  

   ing, 
  and, 
  by 
  1882, 
  we 
  find 
  Barrett 
  concluding 
  that 
  distant 
  and 
  laetus 
  

   were 
  one 
  species, 
  a 
  spring 
  and 
  a 
  summer 
  form. 
  In 
  this 
  conclusion, 
  

   South, 
  Tutt, 
  and 
  others 
  finally 
  acquiesced. 
  In 
  his 
  Lepidoptera 
  of 
  the 
  

   British 
  Islands 
  {circa 
  1903), 
  Barrett 
  says, 
  as 
  a 
  final 
  conclusion, 
  "these 
  

   last 
  seem 
  to 
  agree 
  accurately 
  with 
  Professor 
  Zeller's 
  0. 
  distans, 
  the 
  

   paler 
  form 
  with 
  his 
  0. 
  laetus. 
  Those 
  found 
  on 
  the 
  south 
  coast 
  of 
  Kent 
  

   are 
  especially 
  soft 
  in 
  colour. 
  I 
  think 
  that 
  Professor 
  Zeller 
  ultimately 
  

   felt 
  doubtful 
  of 
  the 
  distinction 
  of 
  his 
  0. 
  distans 
  and 
  0. 
  laetus. 
  They 
  

   seem 
  to 
  be 
  no 
  more 
  than 
  faint 
  variations 
  of 
  this 
  one 
  species." 
  This 
  

   probably 
  sums 
  up 
  the 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  species 
  that 
  had 
  obtained 
  for 
  

   about 
  twenty 
  years. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  fault 
  to 
  find 
  with 
  the 
  position, 
  as 
  

   regards 
  British 
  examples, 
  since, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  we 
  yet 
  know, 
  no 
  true 
  laetus 
  

   has 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  these 
  islands, 
  nor 
  is 
  likely 
  to 
  be 
  (though 
  the 
  

   sporadic 
  occurrence 
  of 
  an 
  imported 
  specimen, 
  as 
  of 
  so 
  many 
  quite 
  southern 
  

   species, 
  is 
  just 
  possible). 
  The 
  error 
  is 
  in 
  applying 
  this 
  true, 
  but 
  

   insular, 
  conclusion 
  to 
  the 
  whole 
  continental 
  area, 
  as 
  evidenced 
  by 
  

   Staudinger 
  and 
  Rebel's 
  Catalog, 
  published 
  in 
  1901 
  ; 
  for 
  how 
  long 
  before 
  

   this 
  date 
  laetus 
  was 
  understood 
  to 
  be 
  sunk 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  know. 
  Barrett's 
  

   belief 
  as 
  to 
  Zeller's 
  change 
  of 
  opinion 
  may 
  be 
  quite 
  correct. 
  When 
  

   Zeller 
  dealt 
  with 
  these 
  two 
  species 
  (1847), 
  he 
  possessed 
  an 
  acumen 
  that 
  

   is 
  rarely 
  reached 
  and 
  never 
  exceeded. 
  He 
  saw 
  distinctly 
  that 
  there 
  

   were 
  two 
  species, 
  though, 
  how 
  he 
  did 
  it 
  on 
  the 
  obvious 
  imaginal 
  

   characters, 
  it 
  is 
  hard 
  for 
  us 
  to 
  understand; 
  he 
  was, 
  however, 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  

   giants, 
  and 
  we 
  are 
  but 
  pigmies. 
  When 
  asked 
  for 
  his 
  opinion 
  many 
  

   years 
  later, 
  he 
  probably 
  was 
  ready 
  to 
  acquiesce 
  in 
  what 
  he 
  took 
  to 
  be 
  

   the 
  modern 
  conclusion 
  on 
  a 
  subject 
  he 
  had 
  not 
  looked 
  at 
  for 
  so 
  long, 
  

   but 
  such 
  acquiescence 
  goes 
  for 
  little. 
  When 
  I 
  looked 
  over 
  specimens 
  

   from 
  the 
  Walsingham 
  collection, 
  I 
  found 
  a 
  moth 
  (from 
  Granada) 
  that 
  

   I 
  could 
  not 
  separate 
  from 
  distans, 
  yet 
  it 
  had 
  a 
  larva 
  and 
  pupa 
  quite 
  

   different 
  from 
  the 
  described 
  larva 
  and 
  pupa 
  of 
  distans, 
  with 
  which 
  a 
  

   distans 
  pupa 
  (from 
  Mr. 
  Norgate) 
  quite 
  agreed. 
  I 
  found 
  also 
  that 
  a 
  

   number 
  of 
  Spanish 
  specimens 
  before 
  me, 
  had 
  genitalia 
  ( 
  $ 
  ) 
  quite 
  different 
  

   from 
  any 
  other 
  European 
  Oxyptilus 
  I 
  had 
  examined. 
  These 
  specimens 
  

   1 
  found 
  to 
  be 
  indistinguishable 
  from 
  Lord 
  Walsingham's 
  specimen, 
  

   and, 
  individually, 
  indistinguishable 
  from 
  O. 
  distans, 
  yet 
  the 
  facies 
  of 
  

   the 
  whole 
  series 
  was 
  very 
  clearly 
  different 
  from 
  that 
  of 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  

   distans. 
  They 
  were 
  smaller, 
  slighter, 
  and 
  paler. 
  When 
  Mr. 
  Tutt 
  

   came 
  to 
  the 
  consideration 
  of 
  0. 
  distans 
  for 
  his 
  " 
  British 
  Lepidoptera," 
  

   he 
  found 
  himself 
  prejudiced 
  in 
  favour 
  of 
  the 
  British 
  view, 
  and, 
  as 
  luck 
  

   would 
  have 
  it, 
  I 
  forgot 
  for 
  the 
  moment 
  the 
  result 
  of 
  my 
  examination 
  

   of 
  the 
  genitalia 
  made 
  some 
  twelve 
  months 
  before. 
  In 
  discussing 
  the 
  

   matter, 
  therefore, 
  he 
  thought 
  there 
  might 
  be 
  some 
  error 
  about 
  the 
  

   Walsingham 
  specimen. 
  Milliere's 
  account 
  of 
  laetus 
  would 
  bo 
  very 
  

   valuable 
  corroborative 
  evidence, 
  but 
  was 
  not 
  clear 
  enough 
  to 
  form 
  a 
  

   sound 
  foundation. 
  1 
  then 
  remembered 
  what 
  had 
  made 
  me 
  so 
  

   positive 
  that 
  the 
  Spanish 
  were 
  quite 
  distinct 
  from 
  the 
  British 
  

   examples, 
  and, 
  on 
  repeating 
  the 
  examination 
  on 
  further 
  specimens 
  of 
  

   both 
  species, 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  escape 
  from 
  the 
  conclusion 
  thai 
  they 
  were 
  

   absolutely 
  distinct. 
  Lord 
  Walsingham's 
  larv» 
  and 
  pupse 
  beca 
  

   thoroughly 
  trustworthy, 
  and 
  even 
  Milliere's 
  plate 
  ami 
  desorip 
  

  

  