35 
though it is curious that he should have given the precedence to 
Curtis’ later name. De la Harpe at first ( Faune Suisse fJp., iv., p. 
137) recognises that the English are right in making two species, hut 
mistakenly sinks the name immanata in the synonymy of “ russaria 
and calls immanata by the erroneous name of “ perfuscaria (— ata), 
Haw. (teste Curtis ipse”). He gives the figure of a narrow-winged 
typical, black-handed immanata form (fig. 9). But in his second 
supplement (in Nouv. Mem., xiv., p. 18) he goes back upon his former 
opinion and sinks it as a variety. Guenee (1858) supports in the main, 
the opinion of his countrymen as against that of his friend Doubleday, 
notwithstanding the many occasions on which that entomologist had 
proved his almost infallible instinct for specific differentiation ; for 
although he (Guenee) mentions the English opinion, and introduces 
one or two “ ifs ” regarding its status, he gives it as var. A of russata. 
Doubleday in his second edition, and Stainton in the “Manual,” 
follow Doubleday’s first list. 
Probably it was the opposition of Guenee—the first foreign author 
whose work seemed to get a real foothold in England—which induced 
Hellins to take up combatively the question of two species versus one, 
and it is to his pen that we are indebted for the often quoted, exceed¬ 
ingly effective articles which appeared in the “ Zoologist ” for 1861 
(p. 8986), and the “Entomologists’ Monthly Magazine” for 1864-65 
(i., p. 165). Of these articles, Dr. Knaggs (Pint. Ann., 1865, p. 101) 
under-estimating the obstinacy of human blindness, remarks that they 
“completely set the matter of their specific distinctness at rest.” 
You will remember that Hellins noted differences in the egg, larva 
and imago, though not in the pupa. His articles are too extended to 
quote in full, and are readily accessible to you in our own and other 
libraries, but a paper such as the present would hardly be complete 
without some brief outline of them. His first, in the “ Zoologist,” deals 
chiefly with the imagines, and he expressly disclaims originality in it, 
“ having compiled from various communications made to me by Mr. 
Id. Doubleday.” First, woodcuts are given from drawings made by 
Mr. Buckler of specimens lent by Doubleday, and these are shown to 
bring out cleirly the narrower, more falcate wings of immanata, 
resulting in its assuming a more Deltoid resting posture, in which 
Doubleday asserts that “ he can recognise it at a glance.”'" The 
differences in the “outermost line of the broad central band” are then 
discussed, and although these have since been challenged on account 
of the variability of the said line, I must say that, in a general way, I 
find it quite as reliable as the hindwing line which has been substi- 
* The distinction in shape and resting posture is well brought out in Lyonet’s 
posthumous “ Recherches” (1832), where, too, we get the earliest known descrip¬ 
tion of the early stages of C. immanata (pp. 275-6), though the editor, de Haan, did 
not know its name, and merely writes (p. 566) “ Phalae.ua . . . . ?” The figures 
(pi. 28, fig. 11-15) give the larva in two positions, the pupa, the moth at rest and 
the same set (ah. mannorata, auctt.). On pp. 282-8 is a description of the trans¬ 
formations of C. tmncata, and these are figured at pi. 29, fig. 10-16 (ab. centum- 
notata, auctt., with a slight approach to the Arran concinnata); de Haan recognised 
this (p. 566) as Phalaena russata, Hiibn. L’Admiral’s crude larva (pi. xxxii.) is 
certainly truncata, as shown by the dates, and his three moths are apparently all 
the same, though the male (resting on a rosebud), has the band shaped rather like 
imm inata. 
xviii. 
