42 
species, than there is that von Eottemburg did not dedicate his Sphinx 
fjallii to Herr Gall; and we must abide by Haworth’s spelling. More¬ 
over, there is an additional advantage in so doing in the present case,, 
as it escapes homonymy with Phalaena bifasciata of Cramer, and others. 
I believe it has thus far only found currency in Heinemann ( Sclnnett. 
Deutsch., i., p. 744, following Herrich-Schaeffer’s latest nomenclature) 
and Snellen, Tijd. Ent ., xiii., p. 87 ; Vlind., ii., p. 1184), and in each 
case in the emended form bifasciata. 
Haworth’s type of bifaciata ( Lep. Brit., p. 834), had a cinereous 
ground-colour, and two fuscous bands, the one near the base, and the 
median; i.e., it represents the lighter and more sharply marked of 
the ordinary forms; it is well figured by Milliere (lc., pi. 114, fig. 12), 
and very recognizably by Wood (Ind. Ent., fig. 702), and Humphreys 
and Westwood (Brit. Moths., ii., pi. lxxi., fig. 21). Ab. unifasciata,. 
Haw., (Lep. Brit., p. 335), was “ griseo-fuscous,” i.e., the darker form,, 
with only the median fascia well expressed in darker fuscous. 
Aquilaria, H.-S. (Syst. Bearb., iii., p. 163, fig. 336), treated by 
Staudinger as “ ab. obscurior,” seems to me hardly appreciably darker 
than ab. unifasciata, Haw., and might easily be sunk to it; his figure 
is spoilt by having the tinted halves of the rivulets coloured bright 
orange ! Scitularia, Ramb. (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., ii., p. 42, pi. ii., fig. 
8) from Corsica, was first determined by Herrich-Schaeffer as belonging 
to this species; this was confirmed by Guen4e (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 294), 
and the determination has been accepted, although Milliere (2c., iii., p. 
147), feels somewhat dubious, as Rambur gives the epoch as June, 
whereas with Milliere (as with us in England), bifaciata does not 
appear till August. Rambur’s figure is unrecognisable, but his 
description fits fairly well to bifaciata, and probably to the type form— 
I have seen no examples from Corsica; he makes it “ fusco rufoque 
variis liniis quatuor transversisjjalbis, externa dentata,” etc. Herrich- 
Schaefler ( Deutsch. Ins., p. 161, pi. 165-5), gives a small well-marked 
Prussian specimen as “ sdtulata, Ramb.; ” his temperata, which precedes 
it ( loc. cit.), and which is preceded in its turn by hydrata, ivas no doubt 
also a Perizoma, but I cannot at present identify it, and it is nowhere 
quoted. Linulata, Gn. (Ur. et Phal., ii., p. 298), founded on a single, 
poor example from the Pyrenees, was probably a small ab. unifasciata. 
Milliere (Ic., iii., p. 148, pi. 114, fig. lb, anno 1870), gives us 
a remarkable variety which is virtually overlooked by Staudinger, who 
merely cites the figure to the type form, and ignores the name (or 
names). Milliere says: “ Je signale une jolie variete constante de 
cette Emmelesia ; je la nomme var. euphrasiata. Elle est plus petite 
que le type, a la fond des ailes blanchatre, avec les bandes d’un gris de 
souris.” He suspects it may be a distinct species. On the plate, it is 
named “var.? odonata,” but the name in the text is evidently the one 
to be adopted, as the author himself uses it in his Cat. Lep. Alpes- 
Marit., in 1874, p. 217. This “ var. euphrasiata ” is puzzling, totally 
unlike anything I have seen in bifaciata, and reminding almost more 
of minorata ; it is about the size of our English var. ericetata, about the 
colour of some pale continental ones, has central fascia about the same 
width as in minorata, but with rather dentate margins, a distinct waved 
line before the subterminal, the fringes with distinct dots on the hind- 
winys only. I learn from Barrett (Lep. Brit., viii., p. 235), that Prof.. 
Meldola has a lovely aberration of P. bifaciata, from Surrey, with the 
