86 
Form 8 has to be called var. subfasciaria, Boh., as Staudinger shows 
in his new edition, and ab. thules, Weir, is only a more extreme aber¬ 
ration of it; form 2, and probably even form 1, occur also occasionally 
as aberrations, only in smaller average size. Boheman ( Kongl . 1 et. 
Ah. Handl. for 1851, p. 138) erected subfasciaria as a distinct species— 
“ Acidalia subfasciaria,” differing from A. albularia in its darker tone 
and its cinereous hindwings, etc. ; he describes the forewings as pale 
mouse-colour, with the central area a little darker, and the subterminal 
whitish; two from southern Sweden. Lampa (Ent. TicL, vi., p. 115) 
first identified it, and doubtfully sunk griseata, Stgr., to it. His 
suggestion has unfortunately been followed by Aurivillius (Nonl. Ejdr., 
p. 246) and Staudinger (Cat., ed. 3, p. 305); tbe former describes var. 
subfasciaria as being almost unicolorous yellow-grey, with almost 
obliterated markings, central fascia indistinctly darker, hindwings 
grey; the latter diagnoses it as “al. ant. fere unicol. fiavescenti-griseis, 
al. post griseis.” What connection this has, excepting in the grey 
hindwings, with the well-marked ab. griseata ( ride Wood, fig. 698, or 
Haworth’s or Guenee’s description) it is not easy to see. Weir describes 
ab. thules (Entom ., xiii., p. 219) as “ luteous lead colour, weakly 
marked;” Hoffmann (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xlv., p. 370) considers Weir’s 
figures intermediate between the type and the extremest Shetland 
form, as he possesses them decidedly darker. 
Form 4 has recently been differentiated by Strand ( Nyt. Mag. Nat., 
xl., p. 167, 1902), who names it var. (et ab.) dissoluta; “minor, 
dilutior ” would sufficiently characterise it. According to its author, 
it forms a local race in the north of Norway, and perhaps an occasional 
aberration in Bucovina and Roumania; I think I may add. on the 
evidence of our national collection, also in the Swiss Alps, fifteen, 
which Dr. Chapman brought from Bossekopin 1898, and some Finland 
examples in the Natural History Museum, are certainly dissoluta, yet 
hardly “minor”—not nearly so small as the Shetland race [cfr. 
Staudinger, Stett. Ent. Zeit., xxii., p. 399.] On the other hand, the 
Dovrefjeld examples (Br. Mus. Coll.), one from Harstad (coll. L.B.P.), 
etc., favour the subfasciaria form. 
Form 5 culminates, as I have said, in the extreme Hebrides form 
named hebudium, by Jenner Weir (Entom., xiv., p. 221, pi. 1, fig. 17). 
Hebudium was, of course, a misprint for hebridium, but Mr. Weir had 
the wisdom to abide by the published spelling, which is now firmly 
established. Staudinger’s diagnosis “ al. unicoloribus albidis ” is 
exactly correct. He overlooks the fact that Stephens made the form 
known just 50 years earlier (III. Haust., iii., p. 291), and that Wood 
figured it in his Index Entmnologicus (fig. 684). This oversight, how¬ 
ever, does not affect the name, as Stephens and Wood misnamed it 
Cleogene niveata (i.e., ''•'nieeata, Stph., nec Scop.). Stephens’ specimen 
was received from Scotland, but there is no clue as to the exact locality ; 
of course it may possibly appear as an aberration in other places besides 
the Hebrides, occasionally the Finmark examples run decidedly in this 
direction. Clean white forms, weakly marked, are also recorded by 
Christoph, from north Persia (Horae Boss .,x., p. 40) and by Hoffmann 
from tbe Caucasus (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xlv., p. 370). 
This species is genet ally out about June, but there is some reason 
to suspect a partial second brood. Strand (Nyt. Mag. Sat., xl., p. 168) 
reports a freshly-emerged specimen in Sudal on September 13th, 1901, 
