27 
outcome of Mr. Tutt’s attitude to this question will be the reduction 
of most of our genera to a single species, and of nearly all the residue 
to two species only, or at most three or four. For the present, we 
may view our Perizomas as dividing as follows: (a) affinitata and 
alchemillata; ( b) Jiavofasciata : ( c) albulata, blandiata and minorata; 
(d) bifaciata; (<;) taeniata. Or we may merge (a) and ( b ) together, for, 
notwithstanding its very different colour, I suspect that jiavofasciata 
is pretty closely related to affinitata; possibly, too, (cl) may be merged 
in (c). 
Affinitata and alchemillata are the British representatives of a 
puzzling little group of European forms, which will need much care¬ 
ful revision before we understand them. There are six or seven forms 
which have, at some time or other, laid claim to specific rank; the 
others being hydrata, Tr., lugdunaria, H.-S., flexuosaria, Bch., fennica, 
Reuter, and rivinata, F. v. R. (= turbaria, Stph., ex err.). The last-named 
—the affinitata var. turbaria of Guenee and Staudinger—is now gener¬ 
ally conceded to be co-specific with typical affinitata, and seems to be 
occasionally connected with the type through intermediates, though 
such are rai’e ; it is therefore very unlikely that any discovery awaits 
us which shall lead to the separation of these two, notwithstanding 
that I do not think any absolutely conclusive evidence has been 
brought forward. I ought to mention that Gumppenberg (Nova 
Acta Acad. Caes. Nat., liv., p. 399) makes affinitata, Stph., one species, 
with alchemillata, Linn., as a var. (!!); and turbaria, Stph., a separate 
species, though admitting he does not know it. 
As to hydrata, Tr., it is a well-known species on the Continent, 
and need not concern us now, as it could hardly have been overlooked 
so long if British ; its non-occurence with us is one of those proble¬ 
matical questions with which we are so often confronted, for it reaches 
to Finland and Russia, and to the Pyrenees, and its foodplants are 
species of Silene which occur in England— S. nutans, even if not also the 
commoner S. inflata. This Perizoma and its two British allies, 
affinitata and alchemillata, have been satisfactorily differentiated upon 
their $ genitalia, both by Aurivillius ( Nordens Fjarilar, pp. 247-248) 
and Petersen (Ley. Faun. Estland, p. 135). 
Concerning P. lugdunaria, H.-S., I know very little. Herrich- 
Schaeffer’s figure (fig. 565) appears to be well executed, and seems to 
me to show a tolerably close ally of P. alchemillata, with which also 
Herrich-Schaeffer compares it; he gives no description whatever, merely 
saying that it is “ from H. de la Harpe, from Lyon, near rivularia 
[ alchemillata ] yet certainly distinct.'’ In his 1861 catalogue (p. 81), 
Staudinger cites it with a ? to hydrata, but by 1871 he had evidently 
learned to know it, as he makes it a good species, placed between 
hydrata and unifasciata (ed. 2, p. 189), and gives, for localities, “Gal. 
m. et c. Hung.,” Berce in 1873 ( Faune Ent. Fr., v), seems to have had 
no knowledge of it, nor am I aware of any further references to it in 
literature, until Bohatsch wrote in 1885 (Wien. Ent. Zeit., iv., p. 178), 
recording it from Vienna, Lipik and Switzerland ; he says that it is 
certainly overlooked, and has often been confused with hydrata, Tr., 
from which it differs chiefly in its white apical spot, and in the clearly 
defined white upper half of the outer rivulet, whereas its lower half is 
more obsolescent, as in hydrata. 
As regards jiexuosaria, Boh., and fennica, Reuter, there is still 
