26 
specimen sent to me by Staudinger and Bang-Haas as “ ab. (jelata." 
The locality given me for this, by the way, was “Greenland,” 
but this was probably by a mere oversight; at any rate, I 
should not feel sufficient faith in a dealer’s locality to make use of it 
for a faunistic record. E. caesiata is not supposed to occur in Green¬ 
land at all; see, for instance, Aurivillius’ “ Gronlands Insektsfauna I.” 
(Bih. Svensk. Yet. Ah. Handl., xv., Afd. iv., No. 1, 1890), which gives 
of Geoinetridae, only Dasyuris polata, Hb., a doubtful Eupithecia 
(? nanata, Hb., var.), Operophtera brumata, L., and Psychophora sabini, 
Kirb. One fine specimen of the form in question (“ ab. yelata ”) is 
recorded by Schneider from Tromso ( Troms . Mus. Aarsh., xv., p. 82). 
As this form {yelata var. A of Guenee) is still without a name, I 
propose to name it ab. prospicuata,* since it is certainly the most 
outstanding form of the species ; in a sense it may be said to continue 
the line of variation suggested in ab. annosata, Zett., but it is incom¬ 
parably more extreme. 
The next form named was inventaraia, Grote {Bull. U. S. Geol. and 
Geayr. Sure., vi., p. 591, 1882), which may really be, as Grote believed, 
a distinct species. I can say verv little about it at present, having 
failed to trace, in our museum, the specimens which will serve as its 
types. The history of the name is as follows. In 1881, Dr. A. G. 
Butler received for the British Museum, some examples of North 
American Geometrides from Mr. H. Edwards, and on these he published 
some notes in the American periodical “ Papilio,” vol. i.. pp. 220-228 
(December, 1881). Amongst the notes we read (p. 222): “ ‘ Glau- 
cnpteryx caesiata, Hiibner.’ Two specimens, Havilah, California. 
This is not the European G. caesiata, the latter has the outer edge of 
the broad belt across the primaries regular and dentated, whereas this 
species is more like G. kollariaria with a regular sinuated band. I 
doubt the occurrence of G. caesiata in America, although Packard’s 
figure looks rather like the species; it is probable that the insect before 
me is undescribed.” Next year, Grote came to the same conclusion ; 
he writes {loc. cit.) : “ After comparing European specimens with our 
own, I have made the two following changes in our lists,” and the 
first of these changes is: “ Glaucopteryx inventaraia, Gr., for Gl. 
caesiata\ Butler, Papilio, i., 222” [the j indicates the invalidity of the 
name, i.e., “ caesiata, Butler, nec Lang,” as the “ Zoological Kecord ” 
enters it]. Grote probably meant to write inventaria, and has his 
printer to thank for the ungainly name, as well as for several other 
misprints ; but of course the published form must be followed. As I 
have not found Butler’s Havilah specimens in the nmiseum series of 
caesiata, I suspect they turned out to be some entirely different species 
and have been removed to a more appropriate position, though Mr. 
Warren tells me he has no recollection of them ; I shall hope to light 
upon them some day. Although it is by no means certain, perhaps 
hardly even probable—that Grote’s American examples which he 
“ compared with European ” were really the same thing as Butler’s, 
yet as he has given no trace of description, and has expressly erected 
the “ n. nora.” on a reference to Butler, it is quite clear that its 
application will necessarily be to the specimens partially described in 
* Since reading this paper I have published it under this name, Ent. Rcc., 
xix., p. 22. 
