22 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
ings of that variety, and that therefore his connection of Mr. Baxter’s 
specimen with gueneei was unwarranted, and as Mr. South used guened 
as a link between Mr. Baxter’s specimen and nickerlii^ this also was 
abortive. He then drew attention to Mr. South’s description of Mr. 
Leech’s so-called nickerlii from Bohemia. Mr. Tutt said that he would 
not argue that these specimens were not, as stated by xMr. South, vars. 
of L. testacea. Probably they were, and further than that, probably 
somewhat similar to Mr. Baxter’s beautiful form. But if so, they could 
not be Freyer’s nickerlii. Mr. Tntt then read a translation of Freyer’s 
original description of 7 iickerlii.^ and compared it with Mr. South’s 
description of the Bohemian specimens. How, Mr. Tutt asked, could 
the specimens in question be referred to nickerlii which Freyer de- 
scribed as “reddish grey in colour,” when the colour in the most 
distinctly marked Bohemian specimen, was “ grey, tinged with 
ochreous,” and in the Lancashire specimens, “pale grey”? The only 
characters common to nickerlii, Freyer, the Bohemian specimen de- 
scribed and the Lancashire specimen, appeared to be the pale edging of 
the transverse lines and white hind wings ; characters present in many 
forms of testacea which differ endlessly in other particulars. Herrich* 
Schaffer’s nickerlii, it was pointed out, is almost red- brown in colour 
(fig. 565), with distinct cuneiform spots outside the stigmata. These 
were not present in Mr. Baxter’s specimen. When we considered, too, 
that Mr. South based his conclusion and suggested sinking an European 
species on this specimen of Mr. Baxter’s which agrees with neither the 
published descriptions or figures, we got a tolerable idea of the value of 
these conclusions. Mr. South might have suggested the probability of 
nickerlii being a var. of testacea, but to sink it at once on such slender 
evidence appeared altogether out of reason. Mr. Clark and other 
members remarked on the nearness of some of Mr. Hodges’ specimens 
to the Lancashire specimen. 
Mr. Milton exhibited the following species of Coleoptera : — Dichiro- 
trichus obscurus, yEdefJiera lurida, Chrysoinela goettingensis, C. lamina, 
Donacia sagittarice, and D. dentipes, all from Needham Market. Mr. 
Heasler, Cymbiodyta marginellus and Phylhydrus inelanocephalus, taken 
by digging in the banks of streams at Mitcham. He remarked that it 
was often stated that water beetles passed the winter in the mud at the 
bottom of ponds, and he had frequently found the carnivorous species 
in that situation, but the other kinds were usually embedded in the banks 
above water-line. Mr. Cripps, Latlirobium multipiinctum from Mitcham. 
Thursday, April 2nd, 1891. — Exhibits: — Lepidoptera. Mr. Smith, 
a pair of Nyssia hispidaria from West Wickham. Mr. Battley, a series 
of Euplexia lucipara, bred from larvae taken at Stamford Hill. These 
specimens varied in the intensity of the black and yellow sub-marginal 
lines, and in the width of the central band. Mr. Hodges, pale forms of 
Acidalia promutata {marginepunctata) from the Isle of Wight ; also, for 
comparison, specimens from Portland and other localities. Mr. Prout, 
long and variable series of Bryopliila glandifera, from Sandown. 
Coleoptera : — Mr. Heasler exhibited a specimen of Antemeles 
emarginatus from Loughton. The Secretary read a paper by Mr. 
Ernest Anderson of Melbourne, entitled “A Trip to Corranwarrabool,” 
which ga.ve a very graphic account of an entomological expedition in 
Victoria. Mr. Cripps proposed that a vote of thanks be given to Mr. 
