44 
till about the middle of the month—1896, to August 8th ; 1897, 1903 
and 1904, to August 13th ; 1898, to August 17th ; 1899, to August 
15th ; 1900, to August 16th, and one straggler on the 25th (they had 
been with me to Scotland, and, perhaps, got a little upset in con¬ 
sequence) ; 1901 and 1902, to August 16th. It will be noticed that 
no less than five of our Perizoma species show a partiality for passing 
more than one winter in pupa; as P. taeniata hibernates in the 
larval stage, and is doubtfully congeneric, this leaves only two 
possible species— alchemillata and flavofasciata —in which the habit is 
not known to prevail, and it may almost be spoken of as a generic 
habit. It is not improbable that we have yet to learn that in the far 
north, alchemillata is in like case, but I have found it always emerge 
after the first winter in southern localities, and a few which I bred 
from Forres did likewise. 
Perizoma taeniata, Stph.—I have just now expressed a doubt 
whether this may not be sui generis, so far as regards our British 
species. It is a member of a rather large group (so far as one may 
judge from a superficial examination of the imagines), which has its 
headquarters in Asia ; while very few of the other Perizomas extend 
far, if at all, out of Europe. Staudinger, in both his 1871 and 1901 
editions, places taeniata far away from the rest of the Perizomas, 
on account of its “long, strong, anal clasps,” which formed a.primary 
division of the genus Cidaria (Larentia ) on the Lederer system. 
Meyrick, on the other hand, ranges it between minorata and bifaciata, 
Aurivillius at the head of our Perizoma, Poppius after hydrata ; 
Lederer himself, not having studied the species, placed it between 
hydrata and bifaciata. Gumppenberg (as mentioned above, under 
blandiata ) finds the wing form different from his Perizoma and 
liheumatoptera, and makes it a Chloroclysta. The only other members 
of the group which Staudinger catalogues as palasarctic, are vinculata, 
Stgr., which he thinks may be a “ Darwinian form ” of taeniata, and 
minimata, Stgr. [vide Cat., 3rd ed., p. 294, no. 3825 and 3326J. I 
have no knowledge of either, except from Staudinger’s original 
descriptions in Iris. 
The three names which quite certainly belong to this species, and 
more or less to the type form, are taeniata, Stph., arctata, Zell., and 
albimacularia, Frr. fulvida, Butl. [Tr. Knt. Soc., 1881, p. 422), sunk 
by Leech (Ann. May. Nat. Hist. (6), xix., p. 664), seems to me—from 
examination of the type specimen—somewhat doubtful; but the few 
Japanese examples which I have seen of the group are aberrant and 
puzzling, and require closer study than I have been able to give them. 
As to basaliata,' Walk. (List, xxv., p. 1184), with its synonym explagiata, 
Walk. (tom., cit., p. 1728), which has been treated as the North American 
form, or even synonym, of taeniata (Hulst, Knt. News, vi., p. 103 ; 
Dyar, List N. Amer. Lep., p. 283 ; also in our National Collection as 
arranged by Warren), it proves to be a separate, though probably 
closely related species. Walker’s types were worn, and certainly looked 
extremely like the wasted taeniata with which we are all too familiar, 
so that the mistake Avas very excusable. The error was first suspected 
by Dyar (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mas., xxvii, p. 899), and good specimens of 
basaliata, sent me by my kind correspondent, Rev. G. W. Taylor, 
confirm its distinctness ; as he will probably publish some differentia¬ 
tion of the two, I need not do so here. 
