45 
The names variata, Thunb. {nee. Schiff.), and ma\morata, Fab. 
{nec. Sulz.), have, of course, no standing. I should have been inclined 
to refer Thunberg’s typical form of his variata (he recognises its great 
variability) to citrata, in an aberration similar to ab. simpliciat-a, Walk., 
and I might claim some support from Zetterstedt’s determination, in¬ 
asmuch as the “ russata ” by Zetterstedt was evidently' citrata in the 
main ; but in deference to the opinion of Lampa, who knew both 
species, and made his identification from a study' of the ty r pe specimen, 
I have decided to leave it as a synonym of truncata. Fabricius’ mar- 
morata was evidently the white form of either citrata or truncata : as it 
came from Italy, and only truncata is quite definitely' recorded thence 
{vide, Curb, Bull. Soc. Pint. Ital., xi., p. 60) it might have been more 
logical to refer it to that species, but Haworth’s determination for 
citrata has priority, and, moreover, it is clear that Curb had no first¬ 
hand knowledge of this latter species. It may be remarked that 
Fabricius made three species out of the group, according to the colour 
of the central area, centum-notata having it tjrey (though it is nearer 
white in Schulze’s figure), marmorata with it white, strir/ulata with it. 
black. Haworth ( Lep. Brit., p. 325) suggests that Phalaena lineolata, 
Fab. {Ent. Syst., iii., pt. 2, p. 192; nec. Schiff'., Hb.),and perhaps even 
Phalaena myopata, Fab. {ibid., p. 198), are also probably not specifically 
distinct from citrata or truncata, but makes no precise determination;. 
Werneburg {Beitr., i., pp. 453, 542), is much more likely right in 
referring the former to turbata, Hub., while the latter {myopata) was 
evidently a Gnophid, though whether we accept Herricli-Schaffer’s 
determination {pullata, Schiff.), or Guenee’s or Werneburg’s {diluci- 
daria), does not matter at the moment. 
Haworth’s names are well known in Great Britain, and were 
correctly located by' Newman {Brit. Moths, pp. 185, 186), but it so 
happens that only two of his five names stand. I shall deal later with 
those that belong to citrata, and have already shown that ab. perfus- 
cata should be called ab. russata, Schiff'., and ab. comma-notata, ab. 
rufescens, Strom. As was his wont, Haworth erected several 
“varieties” ( = sub-aberrations) in each of his “ species” (= aberra¬ 
tions), excepting comma-notata, but I do not think it worth while to 
recount them. 
I know nothing definite of Tengstrom’s “var. infuscata.” He 
diagnoses it thus : alis anticis apice rotundato, area limbali cinero — 
[sic] coerulescente, subinnotata, alis posticis infuscata.” The locality' 
was Russian Karelia. Lampa {Ent. Tid., vi., p. 108) was apparently 
unacquainted with it, and so was Aurivillius {Nord. Fjiir., p. 242), for 
they both merely quote the original description and locality, while 
neither Poppius (Finl.-Phytom.) nor Reuter {Macrolep. Finl. efter 1869) 
mentions it at all. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I 
treat it as really belonging to truncata, with which the words “ apice 
rotundato” would seem to associate it, and to which it is cited in 
Staudinger’s “ Catalog.” It may be that the forms which Tengstrom 
knew as typical truncata were really citrata, and that this was the only 
representative of true truncata occurring with him. It is interesting 
that the only three truncata from high Northern Europe in the British 
Museum collection (two labelled “ Lapland,” the other “ Finland,” 
Tengstrom) suggest a local race, of a sober, olivaceous tone, with little 
xviii. 
