60 
case, even at the risk of boring some to whom its main outlines, at 
least, are already quite familiar. 
I am fortunate in having been connected with entomology long 
enough to have received some of my earliest ideas and impressions 
from Doubleday, though only through the pages of Newman’s 
“ British Moths ” ; and owing, no doubt, to the strength of first 
impressions, even the combined onslaught of Stainton, Tutt, Meyrick, 
Barrett and South, not to mention Staudinger and a whole host of 
continentals, never succeeded in making me forget that at least one 
eminent authority held that the insect claiming in Britain the name 
of Thera variata was a usurper, and ought to be called obeliscata. Thus, 
it came about that when I took up the study of the non-British Larentiids, 
and their literature, I was quite on the alert, and ready to form an 
independent opinion on the question of “ species versus aberration.” 
Moreover, having become pretty conversant with the facies and range 
of variation of the British form before I set eyes on the Continental, I 
was perhaps more competent to detect differences in the latter than 
my German brethren, who had had the forms mixed all their 
entomological lives. At any rate, as I have already stated in “Ihe 
Entomologist ,” I felt convinced, from my very first beholding it, that 
the “ type ” variata of the continent was a distinct species from our 
British insect. I have also recorded, in the same place, the similar 
impression which a first introduction to true variata made upon Mr. 
Durrant, of the Natural History Museum. 
But here 1 have to make a serious confession, which again points 
the old moral of the treachery of unaided memory. Writing, as usual, 
under severe pressure of time, 1 neglected to turn up my old corres¬ 
pondence, and ventured to state ( Ent ., xlv., 243) what I believed was 
absolutely correct, that “I submitted the genitalia to Mr. Pierce several 
years ago, but as these unfortunately yielded nothing tangible, I pub¬ 
lished nothing on the subject,” etc. Now I find that there lies an 
error in the very heart of that statement, namely, in the words “nothing 
tangible.” I find that Mr. Pierce did find a slight difference — only 
slight, as indeed would be expected, but (since further examination 
seems to show it quite constant) most assuredly something “tangible,” 
and a further proof that we are dealing with two species: — 
1. Variata (Scbiff.) Schmett. Wien., p. 110; Hb., fig. 293 (nec 
Haworth). Not until recently known as British. S genitalia with a 
strong cluster of spines on the tedeagus. 
2. Obeliscata, Hb. (= variata , Haw., et. ah, nec Hb.) Abundant in 
Britain. $ genitalia with smaller cluster of spines. 
The genitalic differentiation, as here stated, could only be utilized 
with an example of each species before one, but I have preferred to 
leave it so for the present, rather than give an erroneous diagnosis, as 
I do not think the number of spines has been exactly counted yet, or 
at least, I have had no more than a single hasty view at Mr. Burrows 
as yet, though this was sufficient to show how easily distinguishable 
the two forms were. I think the number of strong spines in variata 
must have been at least a dozen, in obeliscata not more than six or 
eight. 
In external structure I have not, at present, discovered any difference 
xxii.-xxiii. 
