25 
first tiling to excite a suspicion that the two may not really come as 
close together as they appear, is the considerable difference in form and 
habit between the larvas. That of luctuata is figured by Freyer ( Neu. 
Beitr., vii., pi. 690) and Milliere (Nat. Sicil., iv., p. 8, pi. 1, figs. 4, 5) 
and there is a not very important account by Schille of his rearing it 
from the eggs (Soc. Ent., vii., pp. 12-13, 18-19); it is evidently not at all 
of the characteristic stout form of B. liastata, and it feeds quite exposed 
on Rpilobium, while liastata feeds spun on leaves, in a manner made 
familiar to our Epping Forest collectors by the similar habit of Phile- 
remevetulata. Having only very inadequate book-knowledge, I cannot say 
much about the larva of luctuata, but, from the figures, I see nothing 
against uniting it with its other most probable allies, picata Hb., am- 
niculata Hb. ( unangulata Haw.), etc.—the genus Euphyia Hb. Meyrick 
has also arrived at a separation between hastata and luctuata, on account 
of the simple areole of the former and the double areole of the latter, 
and he has all the three Euphyia species which I have enumerated 
standing as congeneric in Hydriomena (vide Tram. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1892, 
pp. 72-73); but this latter fact loses its significance when we observe 
what a medley his Hydriomena is—comprising ocellata, albicillata, the 
genera (or a great part of them) Emmelesia, Thera, Cidaria, Ypsipetes, 
Anticlea, Triphosa, Larentia, Camptogramma, etc., etc., of our British 
lists—and it is rather amusing to read that “as here restricted” (!!) 
“it is not, in fact, so large as to be unmanageable.” 
On account of the absence of an adequate diagnosis of luctuata in 
the Henna Catalogue, Staudinger refused to recognise the name, and 
imposed that of lugubrata (Cat., 2nd ed., p. 189, 1871) ; at the same 
time calling another species, which was at first misidentified by Hiibner, 
“ luctuata Hb.”, notwithstanding that Hiibner himself discovered his 
mistake and renamed his new species hastulata. But in any case 
Staudinger’s new name was not required, or at most only as a varietal 
one, for Moeschler had in the meantime (Wien. Ent. Monats., iv., 
p. 374, 1860), named the Labrador form obductata, and that would 
have priority over lugubrata, as would also Walker’s concordata from 
Nova Scotia (List, xxv., p. 1295, 1862). Meyrick resuscitates 
Thunberg’s transversata (1788), which is older still; but this was a 
homonym, as the transversata of Hufnagel (1767) was the species which 
we call Philereme (Scotosia) rliamnata. The whole complication is 
avoided by the obvious and natural course of accepting Schiffer- 
muller’s luctuata, which is at any rate more than a mere “nomen 
nudum,” and was elucidated by Hiibner and Treitschke. This course 
has been followed in Dyar’s “ List of North American Lepidoptera,” 
p. 279. 
This species varies considerably in the amount of white, particu¬ 
larly on the hindwings, where in the type it is quite broad. I have 
already remarked on the close parallelism between the extreme dark 
form (var. obductata Moeschl. = concordata Walk.) and the darkest 
examples of Rheumaptera hastata (var. gothica Gn.); you will notice 
that, except in the direction of the outer margin of the central area of 
the forewings, there is very little whereb} r to distinguish them super¬ 
ficially. An intermediate variety has been described by Petersen 
(Lep. Estl., p. 331, 1902) as var. borealis, with the diagnosis:—“ alis 
posticis nigris, fascia media alba angusta, marginem costalem versus 
baud dilatata.” Herr Petersen kindly sent his type (from the Ural) 
