1892.] 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



77 



from Scotland in the collection of the late Mr. T. Allis, this collection 

 being placed in the Council Chamber of the Museum where our 

 meetings are held. The result was that a great number of very 

 choice and picked forms of festiva and so-called var. conjiun were 

 to be seen from many and widely different localities, embracing most, 

 if not all, of the varieties named in Mr. Tutt's second volume of 

 varieties of Noctiice. Still from amongst all the different forms of 

 festiva we could not find one which bore any great resemblance to the 

 var. coiiflua from Shetland, or indeed to the forms of festiva from 

 this locality which I possess. Now, with regard to the small form 

 festiva, called var. confiiia, from the North of England and from 

 Scotland, I quite agree with Mr. Tutt that these so-called varieties 

 are nothing hut festiva. The series in Mr. Allis's collection erroneously 

 named var. conflua are totally distinct from any form of var. confltm 

 from the Shetland Islands which I have seen. But, with regard to 

 the var. conflua from the Shetland Islands which Mr. Tutt wishes to 

 establish as a species under the name of Nocttia conflua, from a very 

 careful comparison of specimens of festiva and var. conjiua from the 

 Shetland Islands, I fail to find any specific difference between them, 

 nor can I perceive that the wings of my var. conjiua from Shetland 

 are narrower than specimens of festiva which I possess from the same 

 locality ; indeed where Shetland forms of festiva and var. confliia are 

 mixed up, I am sure it would be impossible for the most experienced 

 entomologist to tell " t'other from which," and from what I have seen 

 the forms of var. conjiua from Shetland differ more from each other 

 than do festiva from this locality, and until the larvae can be shewn to 

 differ horn festiva, I shall certainly maintain that the so-called Nocttta 

 conjiua from Shetland is nothing but a variety of festiva. — William 

 Hewett, 12, Howard Street, York, March 22nd, 1892. 



LUPERINA NiCKERLII AND NoCTUA CONFLUA. Mr. South haS 



written two pages on Luperina nickerlii, but he appears to have got no 

 further than the elementary notions he had at first. One thing is 

 certain, — nickerlii, Fr., is nothing like L. testacea, var. incerta, and if 

 Mr. South has three Bohemian specimens sent to him as nickerlii 

 which are like the latter, they are certainly wrongly named. As a 

 matter of fact, obscure species are generally named wrongly by 

 Continental dealers, who get shillings for calling their common species 

 rarities from a certain part of the gullible English public where the 

 common species themselves are not worth pence. Mr. South refers 

 to "my opinion." It has been formed by the use of common sense, 

 on reading the various authors who described the species, and not on 

 the statement of a dealer that the specimens are what they pretend 

 to be, and who has to make a living out of their sale. I am afraid 

 Mr. South's verbiage will not alter the fact that he did a foolish 



