100 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



[May 



General Notes. 



NocTUA coNFLUA. — My attention has only just been attracted by 

 the unnecessarily warm controversy about Noctua conflna. I must, 

 in the first place, confess that I wrote very carelessly, when, in my 

 list of captures in Iceland, I said that N. conflua was first described 

 from Iceland specimens, and I regret that this statement should have 

 led anyone wrong. I was referring to Dr. Staudinger's paper in the 

 " Stett. Ent. Zeitung," for 1857, when, for the first time he described 

 the different forms of A^. conflua^ from the examination of more than 

 1000 specimens. At the same time I attributed the name to 

 Trietschke, who wrote 30 years before Staudinger. His description, 

 or rather tliat of Duponchel, which seems to have been published 

 before that of Trietschke himself, was founded on the examination of 

 16 specimens from the Riesengebiege, while in no way differentiating it 

 from N . festiva, would exclude the majority of the Iceland specimens, 

 and his figure does not help matters much. Now the Icelandic and 

 Wolsingham specimens are very much alike, and larvae of this latter 

 sent to me by Mr. Sang as those of N . conjlua produced this form, and 

 differ from any of the Shetland specimens which I have seen. Like 

 the latter, the wing is much more truncate than in the ord'm3.ry festiva, 

 but there is an additional distinction in the relative shortness of the 

 wing. In Iceland I found the size and proportions of the wings to 

 be very constant, the markings themselves run through much the 

 same variations as those of A^. festiva, and I cannot but think that all 

 the specimens, whether coming from England, Scotland, Shetland, or 

 Iceland, must be referred to one protean species, viz: — N. festiva. — 

 Philip B. Mason, Burton-on-Trent. 



Noctua festiva and var. conflua. — Since the discussion on this 

 subject was started, it appears to me that the original lines of argument 

 have been somewhat departed from ; if I am not wrong the " bone of 

 contention " between Mr. Tutt and Mr. South was the somewhat 

 toHgJi and luarrowless one of nomenclature, as to whether, when 

 Treitschke founded the name conjiiia, he had before him and intended 

 it for the small Scotch specimens (Newman's conflua), or the much 

 more distinct and constant brown one from Shetland, recently dubbed 

 var. thules. From what I gather I should certainly think the latter. 

 Newman was undoubtedly at the bottom of much of the confusion, in 

 establishing the small Scotch race as a distinct species under the 

 name of conflua ; except the difference of size, these are in no way 

 different to ordinary festiva, unless, indeed, that on the whole they are 

 richer in colour, but they show exactly the same phases of variation 

 as the normal §ii;ed ones, Tlie brown Shetland ones certainly look to 



