34 
It is impossible at present to say how many different species exist 
in the immediate truncata-g roup. The British Museum has cut the 
Gordian knot by making them all forms of tnmcata. This is certainly 
wrong in the case of immanata, and probably in the case of one or two 
of the Indian representatives, etc. I have not Indian material 
available for study, and can only deal with the probabilities in quite a 
superficial way ; but I think 1 shall he able to show presently that I 
am justified in the opinion that North America possesses at least one 
species which we do not get, and it will not be surprising if yet others 
turn up somewhere in the holarctic region, over which the group is 
distributed. A few valid species which are perhaps not absolutely 
members of the inmcata-group, but have been erected in Polyphasia, 
will be cited in my survey of the names, but not further discusssed- 
Tile North American “ Mesoleuea” hersiliata, Guen., ethela, Hulst, and 
hnlstata, Tayl. ( Ent. News, xviii., p. 210) are likely to be congeners of 
tnmcata, but I have not studied them closely. 
We owe the first differentiation of immanata as a distinct species to 
our countryman, Haworth, and his contemporaries — I should like to 
be able to say “ to their acumen,” but the recollection that they made 
five species out of the two restrains me. To these five, Stephens (Cat. 
and 111. Haust.) added three others, and Curtis ( Guide and Brit. Ent., 
xiii.) yet another — which, however, has been considered, probably, 
synonymous with one of Stephens’. Occasional unimportant records 
of one or more of the supposed species appear in the literature of the 
succeeding years, such as that by Douglas, of Polyphasia amoenata 
[recte, amaenata ] and marmorata for Blair Athol (Ent., i., p. 105, 1841), 
but by the time Humphreys and Westwood’s “ British Moths ” was 
appearing (circ. 1843), doubts had evidently begun to arise as to the 
specific validity of some of the forms, for saturata, perfuscata and 
comma-notata are suggested to be probably varieties of centum-notata 
[=trnncata], concinnnta (“ probably = horeata. Curt.”) a variety of 
marmorata [ = the light immanata ] and amaenata probably a variety of 
immanata \i.e., the dark immanata ] ; in other words, the eight or so 
“ species ” are tentatively reduced to three. Meanwhile, the continental 
authors (Boisduval in 1840, Duponchel in 1845, Herrich-Schaffer in 
1847*) continued to believe in a single species only, which they knew 
by Hubner’s name of russata, nor did Boisduval and Duponchel even 
quote the other English names in their synonymy, while Heydenreich 
(Syst. Verz., ed. 3, p. 58) merely cites all Wood’s eight figures as 
synonyms to truncata. Doubleday’s epoch-marking “ Synonymic 
List ” in 1849, first gave us the synonymy Avith Avhich we are now 
familiar, thus: Harpalyce russata = centum-notata =■ comma-notata (var.) 
= perfuscata (var.) = saturata (var ,) = bnreata (var.); and H. immanata = 
marmorata (var .) = amaenata (var.). As he does not refer to concinnata, 
Steph., I presume he regarded it has identical with boreata, Curt., 
* Herrich-Schaft’er, in his “ Index alphabetico-synomymicus,” iii., pp. 15, 28 
((1855), and in his “ Nachtrage,” p. 139 (1856), accepted that there were two species, 
and made an attempt to sort out the English synonyms, probably influenced largely 
by Doubleday. He only refers amaenata, Steph., marmorata, Haw., and perfuscata, 
De la H. (nec Haw.), to immanaria ( — ata), leaving to “ russaria " (tnmcata) 
Stephens’ concinnata — “certain, on account of the hindwing markings” — 
passer aria, Frr., ? strigulata, and several generally accepted synonyms. 
xviii. 
