24 
In Central Europe, E. caesiata is not nearly so variable as in the far 
North, or in many parts of Britain ; Frey, for instance (Lep. der 
Schweiz, p. 231), says definitely that “compared with high-northern 
examples (Norway and Iceland) the Swiss caesiata varies little.” 
Some of the earliest references to supposed varieties were due to 
confusion of the allied species with it. Thus several of the older 
entomologists, even including Staudinger in his earlier days (cfr. Stett. 
Ent. Zeit., xxii., p. 396), Speyer (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xx., p. 32), and 
Guenee at first (Ur. et. Phal., ii., p. 273)* confused either E. flavi- 
cinctata, lib., as a whole (Staudinger, Speyer), or in its darkened 
Scotch form (Guenee), with the present species, calling it caesiata var. 
flavicinctata; while one (Freyer, Beytr., v., p. 14, pi. 390, fig. 4) figures 
as a var. of caesiata an example which is certainly in reality injidaria, 
Lah. Even one quite modern writer, Giunppenberg (Nova Acta 
Acad. German., liv., p. 390), has attempted to extend the limits of 
the variation of E. caesiata by merging into it a form which has by 
others been regarded as a distinct species ; this is the Asiatic ravaria, 
Lah. (Verh. Zool.-bot. Ver. Wien, iii., p. 381, pi. vi., fig. 4), which I 
shall have to mention later on, but which I may say at once is quite 
evidently a good species. 
The first genuine varieties or aberrations of Entephria caesiata to 
attract attention were apparently those which were brought from 
Iceland towards the middle of the last century, and those studied by 
Zetterstedt in Lapland about the same period; and these differed so 
much fiom the typical form that it was not unnatural that—considering 
the small amount of the material then available for comparison — they 
were considered to be new species and named as such. 
First, in chronological order, came Germar’s ylaciata (Faun. Ins. 
Ear., xv., fol. 18, pi. 18, 1832), described and figured from Iceland, 
and later recorded from Lapland by Zetterstedt (Ins. Lap., p. 959, 
1838), who notes its similarity to caesiata and to his annosata. But 
Staudinger was the first to point out (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xviii., p. 257) 
that it, “with certainty belongs here” (i.e., to caesiata ) “as dark 
variety.” He, however, there diagnoses it as “ var. a. Alis anticis 
nigricantibus, $ 2 ,” which suggests the more extreme form (“ caesiata 
var. A ” of Guenee), and remarks that it is led up to by a series of 
aberrations differing in the degree of the darkening. Germar’s own 
diagnosis of his form, was as “ fuscous grey,” showing the inter¬ 
mediate paler fascite as “ hoary,” or “ more whitish ” ; that is, it was 
an average darkened form, and not the very extreme thing which is 
sometimes met with, e.y., in Britain, and which is the “ caesiata var. 
A ” of Guenee (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 272). 
Next Zetterstedt (Ins. Lapp., p. 962, 1839) introduced us to 
annosata, likewise assumed to be a new species, although compared 
with caesiata, to which he had evidently noticed its resemblance. 
Probably, like ylaciata, it was described from a single specimen only ; 
he says: “ Hah. in Lapponia rarissime” and that it was discovered in 
the mountains of Dalecarlia by Boheman, and kindly sent him for 
describing. He distinguishes it from caesiata by its rather smaller 
* It will be remembered that later in the same volume (p. 544) Guenee having 
received further material from Doubleday, re-described this Scotch flavicinctata as 
rujicmctata, n.sp., which name (as varietal) has priority over var. obscurata, Stgr. 
(C (it., p. 299, 1901). 
