54 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. [March 



Entomological and Natural History Society, held March rgth, 1891, 

 Mr. Tutt criticised my conclusions in his usual style, and, as 

 is also customary with him when engaged in this kind of thing, 

 indulged in a few misquotations. The society mentioned had a letter 

 from me upon the subject, but this communication was not brought 

 before the meeting. As the matter has been re-published in the 

 recently issued "Transactions of the City of London Ent. and Nat. 

 Hist. Society," I think it is due to myself to say a few words. 



The insect referred to in the present note as Mr. Baxter's specimen, 

 was an aberrant example of L. testacea which that gentleman had been 

 good enough to send me to look at. Concerning this variety I wrote 

 (I.e.) "In some respects the specimen agrees Vv^ith Doubleday's 

 description of giieneei, but it appears to be a form of t&stacea 

 intermediate between giteneei and nickerlii" Commenting on this 

 remark, Mr. Tutt says that I used giieneei as a link between Mr. 

 Baxter's specimen and nickerlii, but it will be seen that I make Mr. 

 Baxter's specimen the connecting link, and not giieneei. Then with 

 regard to the three Bohemian specimens of nickerlii to which I 

 referred in my note, Mr. Tutt appears to doubt whether they have 

 anything to do with Freyer's nickerlii, because I describe one of them 

 as "grey, tinged with ochreous," and the translation of the original 

 description to which he had access, gives the colour as "reddish grey." 

 Curiously enough, Mr. Tutt seems to accept Herrich-Schaffer's 

 figure of nickerlii, although, as he says, it represents an almost red- 

 brown insect ; but if he desires to be consistent in the use of his colour 

 test he must reject figure 565 of H.-S. I cannot, however, suppose 

 that Mr. Tutt seriously attaches any importance to slight differences 

 in the terms used to express colour, otherwise, he would have avoided 

 giving two or three different tints to some of the numerous aberrations 

 he has named from time to time. Take, for instance, his L^iperina 

 testacea var. obsoleta, (Entom., XXII., p. 206-207), he first says of this | 

 form that it is "clear whitish-grey." then he tells us that it is "pale 

 greyish-white," and very shortly afterwards we are informed that the 

 colour is " pale ochreous-grey." 



Mr. Tutt says that I might have suggested the probability of 

 nickerlii being a var. of testacea, and overlooks the fact that I wrote of : 

 nickerlii, "Dr. Staudinger considers it as probably a Darwinian species, { 

 and as it certainly is now linked up with gueneei by this Lancashire j 

 (Mr. Baxter's) specimen, the logical conclusion w^ould appear to be \ 

 that if gueneei is a variety of testacea, nickerlii cannot be a distinct \ 

 species." Mr. Tutt has seen Mr. Baxter's specimen, but he has not 

 seen the Bohemian specimens that 1 have examined, neither does he 

 mention having seen any specimen of nickerlii, therefore I do not 1 

 consider that he is justified in putting forward his opinion with such 



