29 
tristata- like species which he had first misidentified as luctuata Schiff.), 
it rightly belongs to that, i.e., it becomes a homonym here (indicated 
by § or * according to the Merton Rules), and Nolcken was quite 
right in imposing a new name— subhastata. Hiibner evidently viewed 
it as a valid species, but Treitschke (Schmett. Ear., vi., 2, p. 209) un¬ 
hesitatingly sinks it as “ an aberration ” of hastata “ with more black 
and less white,” and says it “ occurs intermixed with the ordinary 
type, yet rarely.” Herrich-Schaffer (Syst. Bearb., iii., p. 156) fol¬ 
lowed Treitschke, and so did Lederer ( Verb. z.-b. Ges. Wien, iii., p. 184), 
but Staudmger, in 1857 ( Stett. Ent. Zeit., xviii., p. 259) wrote: 
“ Hastulata * is still held by some to be a var. of hastata, which in my 
opinion is decidedly incorrect ” ; while Guenee, about the same time 
(Spec. Gen. Lep., x., p. 389), was still more dogmatic, stating that it is 
“ perfectly distinct ” and “cannot be confounded ” with hastata, and 
that those who have sunk it have done so without having seen it in 
nature. But Guenee only judges after a few rather extreme examples 
of the Lapland form, Avhich would now be reckoned as ab. moestata, 
and Staudinger, dealing with larger material, soon wavered in, and 
finally forsook his earlier view, vide Stett. Ent. Zeit., xxii., p. 397, 
where, amongst other things, he mentions that Wocke took, in Fin- 
mark, a $ subhastata in cop. with a practically typical J hastata. 
However, the view that there were two species continued to find sup¬ 
porters, e.rj., Rossler (Jahrb. Nass. Ver. Nat., xxxiii.-xxxiv., p. 154), 
August Hoffmann (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xlix., p. 175) and, to some extent, 
Sparre Schneider (Trows. Mus. Aarsh., xv., p. 83), and Strand (Nyt. 
May. Naturvid., xxxix., p. 63), while Gumppenberg (Nova. Acta., liv., 
pp. 278, 292, 293) has introduced it three times, first as var. (sub¬ 
hastata) of hastata, next as n.sp. (sarjittifera) and finally again as 
species (hastulata) 1 The Norwegian and Scottish forms certainly 
seem to me to grade through from hastata to subhastata, as for 
example a short series which I bred from larvoe collected in a single 
locality, Strathcarron, Rossshire ; the ones with the most white must 
clearly be called hastata, nothwithstanding that their size is a little 
below that normal for the south of England, while the blackest ones 
approach the dark moestata form of var. subhastata. As I propose to 
treat the whole range of forms as a single species, I shall reserve the 
study of the variation, and shall devote the rest of my paper to 
hastata. 
Rheujiaptera hastata Linn. (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 527, 1758), is 
one of the very many species which—in spite of the many unfortunate 
discoveries which we students of literature make, and which bring 
continual execrations upon our devoted heads—can never change its 
specific name while the world lasts; even if the faddists, who demand 
that inappropriate or unmeaning names should be subject to altera¬ 
tion, should ever get their way (which heaven forfend!) I believe our 
pretty little friend is reasonably safe, for “hastata” is suggestive 
enough of a characteristic marking, and the alternative name of 
betularia (although given it by the ignorant Gladbach, Namen-und 
Preiz-Verz., 1778) is comfortably appropriated elsewhere. Phalaena 
Geometra hastata was described by Linne, in the first year of binomial 
nomenclature, under the following diagnosis : 
That is, of course, subhastata Nolck., which had not yet been rechristened. 
