93 
but one would not have expected to find a relationship cl°se enough to 
satisfy the requirements of so comparatively specialised a feeder. It is 
worthy of note that the Scrophularinae afford nourishment to just 
half our British species of Perizoma — P. albulata, blandiata, minorata, 
and bifaciata. Other recorded foodplants for alchemillata are Ballota 
(Heinem., Sckmett. Deutsch., i., p. 773), Laminin Treitschke, Schmett. 
Lav., vi., 2., p. 48 [ex Hiibner, “ Lamium purpureum,” in error], 
\ii., p. 216 [from Nature], (doubted by Freyer, Neu. Beitr., vii., p. 54, 
who says: “I have never yet found it on Lamium; moreover, Hiibner 
does not figure it on such, but on Galeopsis ”), “ seeds of the common 
dead-nettle” (Buckler, Larvae, viii., p. 3—perhaps used loosely for 
Galeopsis /), once on Stachys sylvatica (Bossier, J.B. Nass. Ver. Nat., 
xxxiii.-xxxiv., p. 167), seeds of Urtica arena (Renton, Entom., xxxvi., 
p. 60—misidentification ?). Sand (Cat. Lep. Auveryne, p. 100) says 
in capsules of Dianthua superbus; I felt incredulous and am much 
interested at finding an explanation, namely, that the only “ abhemil- 
lata from the Sand collection (purchased by Leech) is a good specimen 
of hydrata, a much more likely species to take lo Dianthua. The best 
known foodplant, Galeopaia tetrahit, is that on which Hiibner figures it 
(Law. Lep. Georn., ii., H.b., fig. 2a, b), and Freyer’s note (quoted supra) 
was soon followed up by Koch, Martin, etc , although our Stainton 
loosely says “nettle,” and Werneburg (Ber. Lep. Tauschver., 1856, p. 
51), overlooking Freyer. suggests Impatiens noli-tanyere, amongst 
which he had seen the moths sitting in numbers. The occasional 
statements that it feeds on Alchemilla are the fruits of Linne's error. 
I have taken it in all localities where I have searched Galeopsis, but 
these are only 7 four—Horsley, Sandown, Brendon and Forres. 
Perizoma flavofasciata, Thnbg.—This species has been almost 
universally known by Hubner’s name of deeolorata, and although 
Werneburg and the Scandinavians (cfr. Ent. Ilec., ii., p. 224) have 
claimed priority for Thunberg’s name, it has only recently obtained 
world-wide recognition (Stgr., Cat., ed. 3, p. 305). The insect was 
described and Jiyured by Thunberg in 1792 (Diss., iv., p. 62, fig. 12), 
while Hiibner did not commence his Geometers till 1796, and there is 
absolutely no shadow of argument against reinstating flavofasciata. I 
know of no other synonyms, nor of any varietal name. The species 
is, on the whole, very constant, though some, even when bred, are a 
good deal paler than others. It is extremely similar in markings to 
P. aflnitata, notwithstanding its very different colour, and I have little 
doubt that they are really pretty closely related, especially as the larvie 
seem to have much in common. But its yellowish colour has led at 
least two modern writers to separate it from its congeners. These 
writers are Poppius and Staudinger. The former, in 1891 (Acta Soc. 
F. F. Fenn., viii., no. 3, p. 75) places it between luteata and parallelo- 
lineata (*vespertaria, Schift'.), remarking (l.c., p. 22) on its approach to 
the former, though, 1 think he only means superficial approach, and 
separating it by eight less-related species from blandiata, and then 
inserting six or seven other comparative strangers before affinitata, 
his next Perizoma, while albulata occupies another position, namely, 
before the Asthena group. Staudinger and Rebel in 1901 (Cat., p. 305), 
place flavofasciata between luteata and albostriyaria, separating it from 
the other Perizomas by the Asthena group. Lederer, in 1853, had all 
our Perizomas together (though in Cidaria and without any sectional 
