40 
they ought not to be lost sight of, although the study of more extensive 
material has shown me that they are not altogether reliable; for instance, 
a few which I have from Heiligenblut (N. W. Carinthia) run the 
British rather close both in size and colour, those from Pontresina are 
nearly as dark as ours (though not quite), and many of the Norwegian 
are as small as ours (though usually considerably paler). Of course, 
Guenee’s idea (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 295) that minorata and ericetata were 
two species, has long been exploded ; he knew the former from only a 
single specimen, which, in its ample wings, pale colouring, broad band, 
etc., offered the maximum of differences from our British race, or 
possibly, even the said specimen was wrongly identified, though his 
description tallies fairly well with two or three of my minorata from the 
Tyrol, Engadine, etc., and, in some respects, with Duponchel’s figure 
(Hist. Nat. Lep., Supp., iv.. pi. lix., fig. 8). Freyer also (Neu. Beitr., 
vii., pi. 615.1) figures rather a broad-winged form. 
The question remains, .can we, as a broad generalisation, call our 
British race “ var. ericetata, Stph.” ? I think perhaps we can, as a 
matter of convenience, though we shall need to allow ourselves a little 
latitude, as Stephens unfortunately figures rather a large specimen and 
not very characteristic of our ordinary range of forms; still, he gives 
the measurement as 7-8 lines, which is decidedly below the average 
for the continental type, and we might diagnose the form thus: v. 
(et ab. ?) ericetata, Stph., Wd. (minor, saepe obscurior, al. ant. distinctius 
signatis). 
Wood figures (hid. Ent., fig. 696) a much more characteristic 
British example, perhaps rather extra darkened. Duponchel’s figure 
of minorata, already alluded to, was from a specimen sent by Parreyss 
from Vienna; it represents broadly the type form, the central fascia 
weaker than in our British figures, composed of one (broken) line before 
and three (waved, approximated) behind the central spot. Freyer’s is 
larger than our English ones, but has a pale ground with strong 
medium-brown markings, the median band well consolidated, hind- 
wings pale. 
Specimens from Norway-—to judge both from my own series and 
that at the British Museum—form a second local race, as small as the 
British, but even more weakly marked than the continental type; hence 
in this respect, the very antithesis of ours, much as the washed-out var. 
lapponica of Xanthorlioe niontanata is of our handsome var. shetlanclica. 
I do not think Strand has named this race; if not, I would suggest 
calling it: v. (et ab.?) norvegica, n. var. (minor, indistinctius signatis). 
There is an occasional aberration in which the darkening of the 
central area (which is hardly ever very complete) is entirely absent, 
the said area being only indicated by the two lines which border it; 
this has been named ab. monticola by Strand (Nyt. Mag. Nat., xl., p. 
166, anno 1902). I possess an example from Kaafjord, and Barrett 
figures an apparently similar form from Mr. Capper’s collection (Lep. 
Brit., pi. 352, fig. la), though the execution of the figure leaves some¬ 
thing to be desired*; possibly also an atrocious figure given in 
Humphreys and Westwood (Brit. Moths, ii., pi. 71, fig. 19), as Emmelesia 
* “ A very pretty variety, in which the central band and all the markings of 
the middle portion of the forewing were absent, ’ ’ is mentioned by Barrett (vol. viii., 
p. 232) as having been taken by Mr. W. Herd, of Scoonieburn, Perthshire, and 
must be even more extreme than Mr. Capper’s. 
