30 
cannot make either square with true fennica in other respects, and only 
mention them to show the variability of some of the characters. 
I will now add a few notes on the variation, habits, &c., of each of 
our eight known British species. 
Perizoma affinitata, Stph.—The familiar name is still the oldest 
known for this species, and, indeed, it is the only one known for 
the type form; the synonymy in Staudinger (Cat.., ed. 3, p. 304) is 
decidely faulty. Stephens, from the time when he first erected the 
species, knew both the principal forms; the one with the less white in 
it (hindwings more approaching those of alchemillata) he rightly 
believed to be a new species, which he named affinitata (III. Haust. iii., 
p. 297) ; the other (with more white, especially on hindwings) he 
wrongly identified with the quite distinct species turbata, Hb , = turbaria 
Tr., calling it by the. latter name (tom. cit., p. 298). It should, perhaps, 
be added that earlier (Syst. Cat., ii., p. 148), he had introduced affinitata 
as a “ nomen nudum,” preceded by an '■•■alchemillata ], which proved to 
be that of Haworth, but neither Linne’s nor Hiibner’s, and was really a 
synonymy of affinitata ; and followed by '■rivulata, “ the middle rivulet,” 
for which he later changed his identification to Hurbaria, the said 
var. with whiter hindwings. Staudinger has maintained this invalid 
name—“ No. 3455 a. Var. (et. ab.) turbaria Stph.” Wood (lnd. Ent., 
fig. 694) figures it very defectively; Humphreys and Westwood (Brit. 
Moths, ii., pi. lxxi., fig. 14) a trifle better. I have carefully gone 
through the synonymy, and find that the names inciliata, Zett. (Ins. Lap. 
p. 961, not 960), x rivinata. F. v. R. (Ber. u. Erg. Schmett., p. 100, 
anno 1837), Zell. (Is., 1846, p. 202, Sine descript .) * 2 , and turbulata, 
Stdf. (Bresl. Ent. Zeit., 1851, p. 81) 3 , all most certainly belong to this 
var.; *rivulata 2 var., Tr., x., 2, p. 206?, Haw. p. 335, Stph., Cat., 
p. 148, should also be added to its synonymy. “ Var. (et ab.) 
rivinata, F. v. R.” is, of course, its oldest valid name. “Major” 
must be deleted from its diagnosis, as the size factor is far too 
inconstant; the smallest specimens I possess (from Esthonia) are 
distinctly var. rivinata, and it is noteworthy that Stephens made 
affinitata larger than turbaria (= rivinata). The majority of our British 
specimens of this species seem to be somewhat intermediate between 
the two most extreme phases of affinitata and rivinata ; and this not¬ 
withstanding that their differentiation was first made by English 
authors. I have a few from Darlington which grade through from one 
to the other, but most of my other British examples are nearer the type, 
yet with less alchemillata -like hind-wings than my four from Stettin and 
several other continental specimens which I have seen. Our series in 
the National Collection is interesting, and shows a good deal ol variation, 
notwithstanding that the species is generally credited with being rather 
constant. Most of them divide very readily into the two races, although 
just a few may be regarded as intermediate. Those from Scandinavia, 
Livonia, &c., all seem to be var. rivinata, the seven from Dovrefjeld 
f“ Invalid as not containing the type of the conception.” Merton Rules, No. 50. 
x Lamipa (Ent. Tid. vi., p. 115), rightly unites this with var. * turbaria. The descrip¬ 
tion sent by Zetterstedt to Zeller leave no doubt. 
2 Zeller compares the form to turbata, Hb., and is surprised that Fischer should 
compare it rather with alchemillata. 
3 Staudinger suggests “an var. sequens?” Standfuss’ description, and an 
example sent by him to Zeller comfirms this. 
