22 
following evening. One or two specimens came up, but they did not 
appear to be so eager nor so certain as the previous night; they hovered 
about for a moment or two, but never went down to the turf, and it was 
clear the scent was about exhausted, but that a trace of it still remained. 
Hepialus velleda males fly with wonderful rapidity, so quickly indeed, 
that they are most «. ifficult to take on the wing when hunting the 
females. I have never seen them pair, nor observed the mode of 
attraction ; but there is no reason to suppose it will be any different 
from lupulinus or sylvinus , and that the female when she emerges will 
sit on a stem, and flutter her wings to assist in diffusing the odour. 
It would be foreign to my purpose to refer to ihe habits of any of 
the exotic Hepialidce , some of which are of great size • but indeed, I 
have no knowledge on the subject, nor do any records appear in any of 
our English works to which I have access. Mr. McLachlan ( E.M.M, i, 
vol. xxiii.,p. 215) mentions Hepialuspyrenaicus , of which he says :—“ The 
male is somewhat similar to that of lupulinus , but the female is nearly 
apterous and utterly incapable of flight; any collector, however, so 
fortunate as to obtain a virgin £ , can secure as many males as he may 
desire. They “ assemble” just as in the case of certain Bombyces , etc.” 
It would be interesting to know the habits of the genus in other places, 
and especially whether any of them hover like humuli and hectus. 
I have now accomplished my task, and have laid before you such 
details of the habits and peculiarities of the British species, as I have 
been able to find recorded, or have myself observed. I told you I had 
no theory to advance, nor anything new to introduce. I can only hope 
that some of you may not have read, may not have observed, or do not 
remember some of the facts I have brought before you to-night. 
Mr. Tutt, in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Robson, said that he 
quite agreed with that gentleman in placing structure before wing 
markings as a basis of classification ; he, however, dissented from Mr. 
Robson’s opinion that humuli showed the greatest sexual dimorphism 
in the group, and pointed out that though the sexes in humuli differed 
greatly in colour, the shape of the wings was similar in both sexes, 
whilst in sylvinus and lupulinus , although there existed no great colour 
difference, the shape of the wings of the two sexes differed very much. 
Mr. Lewcock seconded the vote of thanks to Mr. Robson, and stated 
that he had seen H. velleda commonly at Farnham, in the hop gardens. 
Mr. Quail stated that he had taken H. sylvinus $ at sugar. Mr. Simes, 
referring to Mr. Robson’s opinion that the white colour of humuli was 
not required in the Shetlands so much as in the South, because of a 
longer daylight in these latitudes, asked how the advantage indicated 
would accrue, if, as was to be expected, a dusk-flying species varied its 
time of flight in proportion to the amount of light. Mr. Robson, in 
reply, stated that in the Shetlands, where it never got really dark in the 
summer, the species was essentially a day-flier: he added, further as his 
experience, that insects flew at regular times, and not in accordance 
with the amount of light. Messrs. Simes, Battley and others, were of 
opinion that the flight depended on the amount of light—insects flying 
earlier on dark evenings and later on light ones. The vote of thanks to 
Mr. Robson was then carried unanimously. 
It was then decided to have the following notice published in The 
Entomologists Record and Journal of Variation . 
