13 
the enthusiasm of the insect-hunters, whereas it would rather have 
been more torrential rains which would have been detrimental to the 
insects. 
A few of our recent British discoveries, such as the two plumes 
(Stenoptilia graphodactylus and Leioptilus carphodactylns ) and the true 
Nonagria neurica, or species which we have only recently learned how 
to work for (such as Sesia and-renifor inis), have been well in evidence, 
and our member, Mr. Edelsten, has done good service to science in 
working out the early stages of the Nonagria. There is more real 
satisfaction in the study of these local sedentary species than in the 
capture of the rare immigrants, of which there seems to have been a 
great dearth this year. Speaking of the sedentary species, reminds 
me that another of our members, Mr. A. Sich, has been admirably 
working out a Depressaria new to our British list— D. putH della, 
Setoff., which is clearly no new importation, but an overlooked species. 
In another direction of research, we are still expecting a few further 
novelties to be revealed in the study of the genitalia, in which our 
friend, Mr. Burrows, is now vying with the long-time enthusiast, 
Mr. F. N. Pierce, and already we are in the throes of the elucidation 
of a new Luperina, or possibly a new form of L. nickerlii. Close 
microscopic observation of early stages has also still something to 
teach us in this respect, and I have private information that we are 
threatened with another new, and probably well-grounded, British 
“ Oporabia,” which, though differentiable in all stages, unless it be the 
pupal, seems the most palpably distinct in that of the egg. Finally, I 
must mention the mysterious capture of a conspicuous Noctuid species 
(and genus) new to science by Mr. L. G. Esson, quite near to Aberdeen, 
at sugar on a hr tree on July 12th. That there could be no imposture 
about this seems pretty clear, and the only plausible conjecture seems 
to be that the specimen—which is in perfect condition—had been 
introduced at some early stage with some imported conifer, say from 
British Columbia, where Eoctuids new to science are still of no 
uncommon occurrence. In view of these records, and possibly others 
which have escaped me, I do not think the year 1909 can be regarded 
as having been entirely barren of interest to British lepidopterists. 
So far as my limited knowledge extends, no startling new T theories 
of insect biology have been launched during the year. A very 
valuable contribution to bionomics has been made by Mr. Guy 
Marshall in his paper on “ Birds as a Factor in the Production of 
Mimetic Resemblances among Butterflies” (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 
1909, pp. 329-83), and I hope his appeal for help in continuing these 
investigations will meet with a wide response. Most of the other 
matter thus far published in that Society’s “ Transactions ” for this 
year, is purely technical; but the “ Proceedings ” contain some 
interesting matter on Reciprocal Mimicry and other current questions. 
I now propose to occupy your attention for a few minutes with 
some random thoughts on two evergreen subjects—or perhaps we 
should rather say, branches of the same subject—which, in one sense, 
belong to the domain of the systematise but which also have some 
bearing on general theories of evolution and general studies of insect 
distribution. I refer to the delimitation, apparently necessary for our 
classificatory work, of “species” on the one hand, and of the still 
xix. 
