iSgi.] 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST 



71 



matter was settled years ago ; may I be pardoned for reminding these 

 that the word " settle," according to the dictionary, means to " fix 

 permanently ;" that these species are not "fixed permanently*' is very 

 evident, as I will try and point out by a few examples. Of the life 

 history very little seems known definitely, the published descriptions 

 of the larva of strigilis differing in many points. Many entomologists 

 have bred odd specimens of both forms ; but until both forms have 

 been bred from one batch of ova, there are many entomologists 

 who will never believe them to be the same species. Mr. Stainton 

 treats them as separate, differentiating them by colour — blackish- 

 brown, strigilis; xeddish-ochxeous, fasciunciila. Mr. Newman gives 

 them distinct, remarking that he follows Haworth and Doubleday, 

 although the famous French entomologist Guenee makes fasciunctda a 

 variety of strigilis. On the Continent this statement seems generally 

 accepted, for Kirby, in his " European Lepidoptera," following 

 Staudinger's Catalogue, after describing strigilis, remarks : -^^fasci- 

 nncula, which some consider another variety of strigilis, is smaller, 

 reddish-ochreous, &c." Thus do we find that our authors disagree. 



I would also point out that whereas the larva of strigilis has been 

 bred and figured, I can find no case of figuring the larva of fasciunaila. 



The matter rested for many years, everyone apparently satisfied 

 with the way it w^as left, until the Rev. W. F. Johnson, of Armagh, 

 sent Mr. Tutt specimens, which the latter describes as perfectly inter- 

 mediate, and equally well named as either species. I have not had 

 the pleasure of seeing these specimens, and the published account of 

 them is very meagre, not even mentioning the number of specimens, 

 nor the form they most resemble. It is not, therefore, to these 

 specimens, that the point of discussion tends, but simply whether the 

 ordinary specimens usually so easy to distinguish, and called strigilis 

 and fasciuncula, are, or are not, distinct species. If they are, then 

 their structure — i.e., the hard chitine — should be the same ; if they 

 are not, then there should be points of difference in this structure 

 sufficiently constant to designate them species. 



As some of your readers may not have followed the discussion, I 

 will briefly run over the various arguments put forward. 



When Mr. Tutt exhibited the Armagh specimens and his own 

 species, he positively affirmed that fascimicida was a variety of 

 strigilis " without doubt ;" but from the subsequent discussion, it was 



