41 
taeniata (to which it does not bear the remotest resemblance) may 
represent this same variety. In any case, Westwood does not seem to 
be very familiar with taeniata, as he suggests (turn, cit., p. 70) that 
trigonata, Haw., Stph., may prove to be a variety of it. 
One other aberration must be mentioned, though, as I cannot 
determine it from the description, I shall not suggest naming it; this 
the ericetata var. A. of Guenee (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 296), described from 
a north British pair, and said to differ from the ordinary form of 
ericetata (Gn. restr.) in its bluish-ashgrey markings with no shade of 
russet in the pale bands, etc. 
P. minorata is locally abundant in mountain country in a good part 
of Europe, but does not need extremely high altitudes, at least, in the 
north. I am told it flies freely in the afternoon sunshine, but, I think, 
there is no doubt it is on the wing again at dusk, or later; and I recollect 
that our friend, Mr. J. A. Clark, brought in a specimen from an evening 
(or night) expedition in Aberdeenshire, when we were collecting 
together in 1900. The only specimen Avhich I have myself taken was 
secured on August 25th, 1902, at Muchalls, in the day time; but I cannot 
be sure whether it was flying naturally or I had disturbed it. I left the 
locality a day or two afterwards, before the species was fully out. 
Both it and P. blandiata seem, in many localities, not to emerge until 
the summer is well advanced, although hibernating as pupae. 
I believe the larva was long suspected of feeding on eyebright 
(Euphrasia officinalis)* , but it was considerably the most recent of our 
British species to be discovered ; it was not until 1892 that any account 
was published of it (Stett. Ent. Zeit., liii., p. 160). Habich there 
tells how he watched females depositing eggs on the euphrasy in 
August, and the next month got his friend, Planner, to collect him bags 
of the plant, with the result that he obtained numerous larvae, feeding 
on the ripe seeds. He gives a description of them, comparing them 
with those of blandiata, and says part of the pupae of both these species 
lie over to a second year. 
Perizoma bifaciata, Haw.—It is perfectly well known that this name 
has page-priority over unifasciata, Haw., by which the species has been 
so very generally known, and there is no possible question of erroneous 
determination or of preoccupation ; its rejection, except by one or two 
authors, has been purely a matter of caprice, and originated with 
Guenee, who was one of the first on the continent to give the species a 
Haworthian name (Herrich-Schaeffer having renamed it aquilaria, 
although in his indices, in 1855 and 1856, he reinstated “ bifasciata , 
Haw.”), and certainly one of the first definitely to pronounce Haworth’s 
two species to be but one. Why he preferred the latter it is hard to see, 
unless because the type of bifaciata was tres-mauvais (Gn., Ur. et Phal., 
ii., p. 294). Newman (Brit. Moths, p. 115) points out that bifaciata, 
Haw., is prior, and has been better figured, but does not adopt it. By 
the way, nearly everyone who uses, or quotes the last-mentioned name 
“ emends ” it to bifasciata. It is a very plausible assumption that this 
is what Haworth meant, as he calls this form “The Double Barred 
Rivulet,” and unifasciata “ The Single Barred Rivulet,” but there is no 
more proof that he did not consider the former a “ double-faced ” 
* Benton’s statement that it “ is said to feed on heath ” (Entom., xxxvi., p. 60) 
is, as far as I know, without authority ; probably the name ericetata, the “ Heath 
Rivulet,” led to the conjecture. 
