85 
was quite useless, and even misleading ; in fact, excepting the group 
characters, there is no indication beyond “ Rubus caesius larva,” and 
Staudinger rejects it as a “ catalogue name.” Its elucidation, how¬ 
ever, depends on the works of Fabricius and Treitschke, who saw 
Schiffermiiller’s collection, and Hiibner, to whom Schiffermiiller lent 
many specimens for figuring. The first-named (Fabricius) changed 
the name" to Phalaena lividata, apparently to avoid collision with 
another Phalaena obscurata, which immediately follows in his list,! 
but instead of escaping homonymy, he really hereby created it, for 
there was already a Phalaena lividata (Clerck’s) since 1759, and he has 
not been followed. Hiibner followed in 1796 with a figure (fig. 146), 
and, with his usual perversity, changed the termination of the name 
to -aria, and the species received a fuller description in 1827 at the 
hands of Treitschke, j who reverted to the original name of obscurata. 
In the meanwhile Esper, not recognising the inadequate descrip¬ 
tions of Schiffermiiller and Fabricius, had figured and redescribed the 
species as new§, giving it the name of anthracinaria, called carbonana 
by error on the plate ; and Donovan, in like case with Esper, gave a 
very bad figure and a short description|| under the name of quadri- 
pustulata. Since the appearance of the standard works of Haworth, 
Treitschke, Duponchel, and others, recognition has been easy, and I 
do not think any further names have been bestowed upon the typical 
forms, except by the amiable but incompetent Walker, who diagnosed 
a perfectly normal example (locality not known) as a new species 
under the name of Gnophos notata H. 
Guenee also refers to sordaria, Bkh., and pull aria, Hb. (fig. 145), 
here, but I think erroneously. The description of the former was 
simply adapted from Thunberg’s Phalaena sordaria, which is now 
well known to be a quite different species—the northern form of the 
Gnophos mendicaria of Herrich-Schaffer. The latter ( pullaria , Hb.) 
is a very obscuraria- like figure, and has been the source of much 
trouble, as will be seen by a reference to any of our old English 
authors, and even down to Stainton’s Manual (1859) ; but after 
careful study of Hiibner’s figure, I have come to the conclusion 
that Staudinger is right in referring it, as an aberrant specimen, to 
the true pullata of Schiffermiiller and Treitschke. 
I have still to add, before proceeding to summarise the classifica¬ 
tion of the varieties, a few words on the work of our early English 
authors. Haworth, in 1809**, gave two species, which he identified 
from Hiibner’s figures as pullaria and obscuraria, but which were 
really the light and dark forms respectively of our one species ; 
indeed, he himself shrewdly suspected that they might not be 
specifically distinct. As for his serotinaria (p. 311), which he 
places between auroraria and pendularia, there seems some uncertainty 
* Mant. Ins., ii., p. 199, No. 121, (1787). 
+ This obscurata was apparently first described by Fabricius, from Germany, 
in 1777 {Gen. Ins. Mant., p. 287), and is determined by Worneburg as = pullata, 
Schiff. ; but there are difficulties which the present is not the place to discuss. 
J Schmett. Eur., vi., pt. 1, p. 168. 
§ Schmett. inAbbild, v., p. 127, pi. 25, figs. 5-7 (1799 ?). 
|| Nat. Hist. Brit. Ins., xii., p. 63, pi. 463 (1808). 
H List Lep. Ins. Brit. Mas., xxvi., p. 1547* * * § ** (1862). 
** Lep. Brit., p. 314, Nos. 115 and 116. 
