39 
Like several of its congeners, P. blandiata thrives well in the 
north of Europe ; indeed, I believe it is mainly “ alpine and boreal,” 
though in Germany, etc. (e.g., Berlin, vide Bartel and Herz, Gross. 
Schm. Bed., p. 55), it descends lower than minorata. There is an old 
record for the Isle of Wight, and one or two others for the south of 
England, but I feel convinced they must have rested on incorrect 
determinations. The only occasion on which I have taken it was 
during a brief visit to North Wales, at the end of June, 1902, when I 
beat out a couple in the afternoon near Cwn Bychan—a locality where 
some of my friends have taken it regularly. I believe it often flies in 
the afternoon, like minorata and a few other geometers. 
The larva, like that of albulata, is restricted to a single foodplant, 
namely, the eye-bright ( Euphrasia officinalis) ; and it perhaps confirms 
one’s suspicion as to their community of origin, that the two foodplants 
are botanically related. We owe our first knowledge also of the 
present larva to Freyer (Neu. Beitr., vii., p. 7, pi. 604, 1), who shows 
the adult stage, with the gay, somewhat pug-like coat of green with 
red dorsal markings. A fuller description is given by Buckler ( Larvae , 
viii., p. 15), who shows us that the life-history is very similar to that 
of P. bifaciata (unifasciata), the larva first feeding concealed in the 
seeds, and changing its colouring and habit at the last moult, after 
which it feeds externally but is remarkably well protected by its tints. 
Another point of resemblance, though Buckler does not say so, is 
mentioned (loc. cit., p. 16), namely, that the rich yellow colouring of 
the egg and young larva assimilate wonderfully with certain spots, 
apparently some fungus, with which the euphrasy is much infested. 
I have independently noticed the same thing when working for eggs 
of P. bifaciata on the allied bartsia, or red eye-bright ( Bartsia odontites, 
formerly known as Euphrasia odontites). 
Perizobia minorata, Tr.—This pretty little species is by no means 
so over-burdened with synonyms as its predecessor. I know of no 
older name than Treitschke’s, given in 1828. About the same time, 
Dale appears ( teste Stephens) to have given it the MS. name of 
ericetata in Britain. Stephens published this as an Emmelesia in 
1829 (Namend. Brit. Ins., p. 45; Cat. Brit. Ins., ii., p. 148), but still 
as a “nomen nudum”; Curtis followed suit early in 1831 (Guide, 
col. 164), introducing Emmelesia ericetata and a new E. monticola 
(probably a synonym or an aberration of ericetata, as Stephens, in 
1850, suggested), both undescribed ; at last, in a number of his 
Illustrations, dated July 31st, 1831, Stephens made it known to 
science, giving an adequate description and a figure (111. Haust., iii., 
p. 298, pi. 32, fig. 3 —not fig. 2, as cited in the text). I think no 
other synonyms really belong here ; I have shown under blandiata 
that derasata, Schr., and jucundaria, Bdv., are referable to that species ; 
in the 1871 Catalog (p. 191), Staudinger suggests, with a query, that 
linulata, Gn., may be synonymous with minorata, but examination > 
the type specimen has since shown that it belongs to bifaciata (Cat., 
ed. 3, p. 304). 
As regards the range of variation in the present species, it is by no 
means inconsiderable, although not so extreme as in the allied albulata. 
I have long been of opinion that our British forms constituted a local 
race, smaller and darker than the type, and which might be called var. 
ericetata, Stph.; and I still think the differences so general that 
