56 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



[March 



turned, and dashed wildly about us. Wondering what butterfly it 

 could be we tried to catch it, but only succeeded in frightening it 

 away. It came back to the same spot and settled quite close to us, 

 when I noticed it was a specimen of our old friend V. cardiii. Not- 

 withstanding our frequent attempts to capture it, it returned again 

 and again, as if it were drawn by some strange attraction to this 

 rocky headland. I am not sure if this species has ever been recorded 

 for Sutheriandshire, but I daresay it would be hardly possible to 

 record it for a more northern locality in this country than Cape 

 Wrath. I spent two days at Strathay in the hope of taking a good 

 supply of C. ericellus, but my usual " good fortune " attended me — it 

 poured ! I hardly went outside but 1 got drenched, and, of course, 

 on the soaking mosses not a specimen was to be seen. Last year I 

 was equally unfortunate, and I suppose it will be quite in keeping 

 with my entomological luck if my holidays next summer in the far 

 north should be of the usual " weet " character. In Durness I saw a 

 few common species such as L. didymata, A. grossulanata, A. poly o don, 

 etc., but the rarer species were quite absent. — John Mackay, 17, 

 Dundas Street, Kingston, Glasgow. 



NocTUA coNFLUA, Treitsclike.— Mr. Tutt (ante p. 43) seems to 

 imply that the report of his paper was not accurate, but he admits 

 having seen this report before it was published, therefore he cannot 

 blame anyone but himself if it v^/as incorrect. Dr. Mason may or may 

 not have made the statement concerning confliia v/hich Mr. Tutt says 

 that he quoted in his paper, but this does not affect the question at 

 issue, i.e., did the type of conflua come from Iceland ? I think I 

 have conclusively shown that it did not. By accepting, without 

 verification, the statements of others, Mr. Tutt has been led into 

 error, and, instead of gracefully retiring from his untenable position, 

 he writes disparagingly of those who have ventured to correct his 

 mistakes. Mr. Tutt says in his Record that my former remarks on 

 this subject prove that I know nothing at all about it. His latest 

 remarks upon the subject prove him to be an. adept in the art of 

 garbling, and I regret that he cannot, or will not, discuss the matter 

 in a fair and impartial spirit. I only desire to establish the truth, 

 and this is my sole reason for entering into discussion of this kind. I 

 am not at all anxious to convict anyone of error, simply for the sake 

 of what is vulgarly called "showing them up.'' In conclusion I may 

 say that I did not suggest that conflua is a MS. name ; but 1 said 

 that it was a MS. name when sent by Treitsclike to Boisduval, and 

 that both Treitschke and Duponchel published their descriptions of 

 conflua in 1827. I did not suggest that Boisduval knew nothing of 

 Icelandic conflua, because I did not mention Boisduval's name in 

 connection with the question of the locality, i did not suggest that 



