8 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
with a light green lichen like growth ; but the ground was like a soaked 
sponge, and bears evidence of being in this condition for a great part 
of the year : cryptogamous vegetation being especially abundant. I 
would suggest that entomologists when recording varieties should note 
also the environment, in so far as it is distinctive. Such a course would 
render records doubly valuable, and do much to clear up the question 
of the causes of variation. — VV. Mansbridge, Leeds, 
Dark var. of Phigalia pedaria (pilosaria). — On the 25th of 
February I found that a P. pilosaria had emerged in my pupa box. I 
obtained the caterpillar from oak last June. It was a male, very small 
and dark in colour. On the following day I caught a male specimen of 
the same species at rest on a post. It was much lighter in colour and 
a great deal larger than No. i. Now during the whole of its pupal 
stage and part of the larval. No. i must have been kept much drier and 
warmer than No. 2, and yet No. 2 is much the larger and lighter- 
coloured insect. May not the greater abundance of food which No. 2 
would have had in a state of nature have had something to do with it? 
— John Williams Vaughan, Jun., The Skreen, Erwood R.S.O., 
Radnorshire. [I should say the darker colour was more probably due 
to a diseased condition, brought about by Mr. Vaughan’s implied 
starvation diet, and thus the greater abundance of food No. 2 had in a 
state of nature, may have something to do with it. — Ed.] 
Is Miana fasciuncula a var. of M. strigilis? — I cannot help 
feeling that my friend, Mr. J. W. Tutt, has, on very insufficient evidence, 
come to the conclusion that these are only one species. What really 
is this opinion founded on ? That Mr. Tutt has received from Armagh 
a few (probably only two ^ doubtful) specimens of this protean genus. 
That the nine ^ specimens sent by the Rev. W. F. Johnson from Armagh 
are all, what might well be called a “ strong local form,” is beyond dis- 
pute ; but when seen by daylight, and the characteristic differential ^ 
points of these too well-known and generally common insects studied, I 
much doubt if any great difference of opinion would be found to exist 
about them. Of course, when seen by gaslight, a difference would very 
possibly be expressed on the spur of the moment. But looked at by 
daylight, as I have now had the pleasure of doing, I should have no 
difficulty or doubt in saying that seven of these Armagh specimens are 
fasciuncula and two undoubted strigilis. That all these specimens were 
taken together is not the slightest proof or indication that they were 
only one species. I have many times captured the two species on the 
same night, but I have never yet taken one that I had the slightest 
difficulty in determining, in fact, to my mind, fasciuncula and strigilis 
are the most readily separated species of the groups. Why Mr. Tutt 
can, on this extremely slight and superficial character of colouring ^ 
alone, jump at once to the conclusion that he has found the “ missing 
link ” of our long-believed-in two species is beyond me. I need not go 
into the characters by which we have always determined these species, 
^ This is, of course, only Mr. Tugwell’s individual opinion. 
^ Twenty were sent, but only nine exhibited. 
^ I maintain that there is not one of what Mr. Tug well calls differential points 
below, characterised in any of the specimens. 
^ Mr. Tugwell must have missed my article on the subject, p. 243, and my remarks 
on p. 315, or he could not have written this. 
