VARIATION. 
9 
they are to my vision, structural, as well as superficial ; at least, I call a 
more robust thorax, and more truncate wings, structural ; of course, 
you may, and do get larger and smaller specimens of each, still, these 
respective differences exist. But Mr. Tutt finds these characters 
“ superficial,” and of no importance. I should like to ask Mr. Tutt 
if he ever saw what we know as fasciuncula^ in copula with strigilisi 
because, if they are only one species, our mistake in thinking them two 
would in DO way interfere with their free inter-copulation ! This, to my 
mind, points pretty conclusively the other way, and that they are two 
good species. It would indeed be “ passing strange ” that we should 
have had so common a species, with three divergent forms, taken and 
seen by thousands every year side by side, or otherwise, and yet that 
these three forms, say strigilis normal, fasciuncula normal, and var. 
cana should never pass the bound of recognition. I am not prepared 
to argue that you may not find a complete link, possibly, in fasciuncula 
and var. cana ; but fancy a species as prone to vary as is strigilis^ 
stopping just short of a complete chain ; it is to say the least of it, 
hardly probable. In conclusion, Mr. Tutt says his “ Armagh speci- 
mens will do for either ” strigilis or fasciuncula. I agree ^ with him ! 
I'hey may; because he has both species amongst them, seven fasciuncula 
and two strigilis. — W. H. Tugwell, 6, Lewisham Road, Greenwich. 
My friend, Mr. Tugwell, has formed such a decided opinion on the 
Armagh specimens, that I have great pleasure in printing his communi- 
cation as his opinion. But this opinion differs from that of many other 
excellent lepidopterists who have attempted to draw the line. Of these 
I will only name one, our mutual friend, Mr. G. T. Porritt, who believes 
that of these nine queer specimens four are strigilis and five fasciuncula, 
The matter has now got to this point. By the pure ipse dixit of myself 
and other lepidopterists we consider that strigilis and fasciuncula may 
be one or two species. No one can prove or disprove either suggestion 
positively until the species is, or are, bred and differentiated in the 
larval stage. All our superficial arguments will not alter facts, and 
until some good lepidopterist has worked out the life-histories of strigilis 
and fasciuncula and placed beyond doubt their distinctness or otherwise, 
we must agree to differ on the exact amount of differentiation we allow 
fasciuncula to have undergone. For the purpose of directing attention 
to the matter I consider my evidence very sufficient. Mr. TugwelFs 
statement “I have never taken. . . .group,” I quite agree with ; I have 
never taken one, but the Rev. Mr. Johnson has. I don’t like to suggest 
carelessness to my friend, but has he read my article, p. 243, to write 
such a sentence as : — “ Why Mr. Tutt can on this extremely slight and 
superficial character of colouring alone,” etc. ? I think he can never 
have seen what I have written, or he is writing from memory which has 
deceived him. I cannot help returning the compliment by asking 
Mr. Tugwell whether he ever saw fasciuncula in cop. with fasciuncula, or 
strigilis with strigilis. I certainly have never seen fasciuncula in cop. 
with strigilis (I don’t know that I ever made a remark which might be 
construed as a suggestion that I had), but there is a good deal of this 
sort of thing we don’t see. I am rather at sea, too, over my friend’s 
^ This is funny. How can Mr. Tugwell agree with me ? His seven fasciuncula 
are (in my opinion), to all intents and purposes, strigilis, and his two strigilis — 
fasciuncula. 
C 
