33 
$ with much white in its wings,” Stgr., Stett.Ent.Ze.it., xliii., p. 72), 
need not be named. 
6. (ab.) Moestata Nolck., Yerli. z-b. Ges. Wien, xx., p. 62, 1870 
(hastulata Guen., Spec. Gen. Lep., x., p. 389, 1858 ; taunicata Fuchs, 
Jahrb. Nass. 1 er. Nat., liii., p. 61, 1900). Nolcken’s original description 
of this form is not worth quoting, as he differentiated it, not from 
subhastata but from hantulata Hb., Btr., but it is clear that it simply 
covers the darker aberration of var. subhastata. It was described from 
Finnmrk, and a few wdiich I have from there, as well as two from 
North Finland which Staudinger sent me as ab. moestata, agree well 
with Molcken’s description. They are also the typical “ hastulata ” of 
Guenee, while Hiibner’s hastulata (the type figure for subhastata 
Nolck.) has just a little more white about it; but the line that one 
draws has to he quite arbitrary. Fuchs’ taunicata was a single 
specimen from near Oberursch, and though Fuchs regarded it as 
different from moestata and probably nearer yotliicata, his description 
shows clearly that it is simply a dark moestata with the central black 
band rather well consolidated. Herr Piingeler has seen the specimen 
and writes me that it is “ a dark subhastata.” 
7. (ab.) Hofyreni Lampa, Ent. Tid., vi., p. 113 (1885). I do not 
think Staudinger is justified in sinking this to ab. moestata Nolck. ; 
rather should he have sunk that to subhastata. Ab. hofyreni is a very 
extreme form which I have never yet seen, and which it would he 
very interesting to compare with vars. chinensis and yotliicata. Lampa 
by oversight erected it under hastulata Hb., Btr. fHuctuata Hb., nee 
Schiff.) instead of under subhastata, but this w r as corrected by 
Aurivillius ( Nord. Fjiir., p. 248). The specimen was from Jemtland, 
and ivas described as “ soot black, outer white transverse band divided 
by a dentate line; for the rest, no other markings than a w r hite spot 
at the outer margin in cell 4 and a small remnant of subtenninal 
at tip of forewing.” Thus it differs essentially from ab. moestata in 
having no inner white line, nor any white in the central area. 
8. (ab.) Undulata Strand, Nyt. May. Naturvid., xxxix., p. 63, 
1901. This is erected under subhastata, which Strand is inclined to 
treat as a good species. “ The subterminal of the forewings is not 
broken up into spots, hut quite continuous, no distinct hastate mark, 
the hind margin of the forewings with numerous white dots.” Two 
specimens from Langoen, one of the Loffoden Islands. The form is 
perhaps more important than appears at first sight, as it shows that 
one of the characteristic features of B. thulearia is not absolutely 
distinctive of that species. Gauckler also (Ent. Nachr., xxv., p. 17) 
mentions an aberration (his ab. 3) in which the hastate marks are 
only wealdy indicated on forewings and entirely 'wanting on the hind. 
He considers his series of var. subhastata, and this form in particular, 
as indisputably supplying the transitions between hastata and tristata. 
There are possibly some traces of another southern and eastern 
local form or race, as two specimens from Achalzik and two from 
Amur, all in the British Museum collection, show quite a similar 
facies, inter se, being rather large, with the central fascia broad, much 
blotched with white in its inner half and rather straight at its outer 
margin, i.e., rather like the lightest American forms ; but this is very 
doubtful, as such a vast territory intervenes, and I possess examples 
from Sajan and N. Tibet not fitting in with these, and, moreover, 
