29 
2 , the $ taken long before by Carlenius, the 2 in 1889 by Reuter 
biuiself. The former bad been determined by Tengstrom as a variety 
of alchemillata, but as this did not satisfy Reuter, he sent bis to 
Aurivillius, who said it “ gave one the impression of being a distinct 
species.” Unfortunately, the next step was to send both the specimens 
to “ the well-known specialist, Freiherr von Gumppenberg.” How 
much light was likely to be thrown on an obscure form by a gentlemen 
whose writings show that he cannot distinguish affinitatahom alchemil¬ 
lata, rectanyulata from coronata, or minorata from bland,iata, while making 
hastata into three species, ferrugata, Linn, (unidentaria), into two, etc., 
and “ hashing up ” nearly every intricate bit of synonymy to which he 
has put his hand, I leave you to imagine. He pronounced them to 
constitute “ decidedly a new species,” and gave a list of the characters 
which distinguish them from a (fi nit at a and “var.” alchemillata. It is 
only fair to Gumppenberg to add that these seem to have been very 
carefully worked out, and perhaps the very fact that he could 
differentiate the new fennica from its two older relatives, better than 
he could separate these, the one from the other, speaks well for the 
specific right of fennica. Reuter himself, in publishing Gumppenberg’s 
judgment, adds further differences noted by himself. In brief, it 
appears to be a small insect, of about the size of alchemillata (9mm.- 
94mm., of course for one forewing), somewhat different in ground¬ 
colour (“more inclined to coffee - bro wn ”), more thickly scaled, and 
more unicolorous, i.e., less traversed with wavy markings, the outer 
white band undivided on both pairs of wings, and not sharply bounded 
posteriorly, the discal spot distinct and somewhat “crooked” (curved?), 
surrounded by some whitish scales, the shape of the central fascia 
somewhat different, and the black marginal line almost absent in the 
2 , formed of distinctly separated geminate spots in the - 
Staudinger and Rebel suggest doubtfully (Cat., p. 804), that fennica 
may be a synonym of hydrata ab. jiexuomria, adding “ an spec, 
propr. ?” There seem to be one or two points of agreement between 
fle.vuosaria and fennica, but surely they are outweighed by the differ¬ 
ences ? Petersen (Lep. Estl., p. 184) does not think they can be 
synonyms, asserting that Aurivillius had already published his 
description of jiexuosaria, Boh., before pronouncing fennica an appar¬ 
ently new species ; but I do not find any conclusive evidence in this 
direction, and fancy Petersen has missed the true chronological 
sequence;, as I read it, Reuter probably sent his specimen of fennica 
to Aurivillius about 1889 or 1890, whereas the latter author did not 
work out the Geometndae of his “ Nordens Fjarilar ” till 1891. For 
the rest, Petersen suggests that it is probably a variety of alchemillata, 
and inclines to refer to it the prevailing Esthonian form, “in which the 
central area is bounded on both sides by more or less distinctly dark- 
divided white stripes,” adding that in this case var. fennica could 
be briefly diagnosed thus : “ area media fasciis albis terminata.” Ido 
not at all dispute the possibility that it may turn out to belong to this 
species, but I do not quite see how the form can be that which Petersen 
supposes, for in fennica the inner band is said to be “ obsoleta” and 
the outer not divided by a dark line. I possess an aberration of 
alchemillata from Paisley agreeing with fennica in this particular, and 
examples from northern Finland showing the inner white band; but I 
