®ttw of iottfcou ©ntomoloyical
N- natural fjietory Society.

THIS SOCIETY has for its object the diffusion of the science of
Natural History, by means of papers, discussions, exhibitions,
and the formation of collections for reference. Since its commence¬
ment in 1858, a valuable and useful Library has been formed, which
comprises, amongst other works, complete sets of the “ Zoologist
(1848-1897), “Entomologist” (Vols. 1-82), “Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine ” (Vols. 1-85), and the “ Entomologist’s Record and Journal
of Variation ” (Vols. 1-10). There is also a collection of British
Lepidoptera, and collections of other orders are now in course of
formation.

The meetings take place on the first and third luesdavs in each
month, from 7.80 to 10 p.m., at the London Institution, Finsbury
Circus, E.G., which is easily accessible from all parts. Exhibits are
made at every meeting, and papers read on various Natural Histoiv
Subjects, a special feature being the systematic discussion and exhibi¬
tion of interesting groups of insects, &c.

The entrance Fee is Two Shillings and Sixpence, and the Annual
Subscription Seven Shillings and Sixpence, payable in ad\ ance, both
being purposely kept low in order that all may avail themselves of the
benefits the Society offers. The Society therefore looks with con¬
fidence for the support of all who are interested in the study of
Natural History.

The vear commences on the first Tuesday in December, but
intending members may join at any time, the ballot being taken at
the next ordinary meeting after that on which they are proposed.

Further information may be obtained from either of the Hon.
Secretaries.

•7°

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

CITY OF LONDON

tn

i

mal Morn

SOCIETY

FOR THE YEAR 1900

\ y~

ft \ i..

PUBLISHED BY THE

CITY OF LONDON ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY,

THE LONDON INSTITUTION, FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

CITY OF LONDON

Entomological & Natural History

SOCIETY,

ESTABLISHED 1858.

MEETINGS HELD AT

ondon Institution

FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.,

On the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays in each Month.

Council for the Year 1901.

President ..

L. B. PROUT, f.e.s.

Vice-Presidents

.. I

(

T. A. CHAPMAN, Dr., f.z.s., f.e.s.

J. A. CLARK, f.e.s., m.p.s.

FREDERICK J. IIANBURY, f.l.s., f.e.s.

J. W. TUTT, f.e.s.

Trustees

- {

JAMES SCOTT SEQUEIRA, m.k.c.s.

T. HUCKETT.

Treasurer

- {

C. NICHOLSON, f.e.s.,

202, Evering Road, London, N.E.

Librarians

- {

A. BACOT.

H. A. FULLER.

Curators

- {

H. HEASLER.

W. ILSTON COX.

Hon. Secretaries ..

(

- 1

W. J. KAYE, f.e.s.,

Worcester Court, Worcester Park, Surrey.
S. J. BELL,

17, Wiltshire Road, Brixton, S.W.

AND

REV. C. R. N. BURROWS, H. H. MAY, f.e.s., C. P. PICKETT
H. A. SAUZE, and V. ERIC SHAW.

thtkHstkgtioNs

OF THE

City of London Entomological

AND

Natural History Society.

REPORTS OF MEETINGS.

THE SOCIETY’S ROOMS, LONDON INSTITUTION,
FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

1901.

REPORTS OF MEETINGS.

- — » <a -

Dec. 20th, 1899. — Resignations. — Mr. D. C. Bate and Mr. H. A.
Hill had notified the Secretaries of their intentions to withdraw from
the Society.

I. 0. W. Lepidoptera. — Mr. Prout, Melitaea cinxia from lame
taken at Niton, three Heliophila vitellina, two Laphygma exigua, two
Aporoj/hyla australis var. ingenua and Heliothis peltigera from Sandown.
From Torquay, Lithosia caniola and Heliophila putrescens. From
Folkestone a series of Tapinostola bonclii.

Epunda lutulenta. — Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, a long variable series
of E. lutulenta taken on sugar at Mucking, some of the better known
forms were the 8 abs. cinerea, approximata (yellow form), approximata
(true), $ abs. albidilinea of a red shade, and the aberration known as
liinebergensis. Preserved larvae of Caradrina ambigua were also shown.

Lymantria monacha. — Mr. Pickett, a very varied brood of L. monacha
the result of a cross between a type and the black form eremita.

Note on Oporabia autumnata. — Mr. Prout mentioned that four
months had elapsed between the first and last specimens emerging
from a brood reared in captivity. The first appeared on July 30th,
the last December 4th.

Discussion on coast collecting. — The Chairman introduced the
subject, and mentioned in his remarks that much useful ground had
already been covered by Dr. Chapman in his paper on the subject of
coast insects, he, however, hoped that the discussion would be a fruitful
one. In his own experience he had always found that bleak situations
on the top of cliffs, &c., were far more productive than the lower
lying ground, also that sugar, to give satisfactory results, must be
applied to postsand fences in such situations. Woods in the proximity
to the coast were generally unproductive. Sandhills and such situations
were, however, well known to be favourite resorts. Mr. Nicholson
testified to the above, and also added that he had found ragwort, when
sugared, gave good results, as well as bramble blossom. Mr. Dadd
mentioned that some of his best day work had been spent in coast
collecting, and cited Deal as a centre. He said he had seen insects at
snowberry berries. Some speculation followed as to the reason of
their attractiveness. Dr. Chapman suggested that wasps had probably
eaten part of the berries and thus liberated the juice. Mr. Bell
recounted some of his experiences when coast collecting. He had found
Agrotis lunigera high up on the cliffs. Agrotis ripae was stated to be
found in the larval state on prickly saltwort in such places that in the
winter the sea would probably completely cover its feeding-ground. Mr.
Prout said the larvre were known to go down in captivity two or three
feet into the sand and probably, in nature, they would be protected at
such a depth from any action of the sea. Special coast insects were
mentioned by several members. Mr. Bacot instanced Malacosoma
rastrensis and Geometra smaragdaria on the coast of Essex. Mr. Kaye
cited Scxia mmciformis and S tenia punctalis, the former frequenting the
top and the latter the bottom of the cliffs in Cornwall. The President

3

made some concluding remarks in which he stated that the number of
insects found on the coast was probably partly accounted for by insects
congregating there, the sea forming an effective barrier to dispersal.

Jan. 2nd, 1900.— Pocket box exhibition. — Mr. May, a series of
bred Heliophila albipnncta, from ova laid by a Sandown specimen,
also a bred series of Caradrina anibiyua. With regard to the former
species the President remarked that he believed Mr. May was the first
British lepidopterist to breed this moth. Mr. Prout, Oporabia autmn-
nata ab. sandberyi bred from ova laid by a Rannoch 2 . Some Gortyna
ochracea bred from Sandown pup* ; Zunosoma porata, a third brood bred
in September, 1899, from ova laid by a Starcross 2 captured on August
5th, 1899 ; Amathes ylareosa, unusually large, bred September, 1899,
from a Wimbledon larva ; A. xanthoyrapha, an ab. taken at sugar
at Sandown in September ; Hecatera chrysozona bred from Cambridge,
and H. serena from Torquay ova ; an interesting box of northern
Larentiidae was also shown, which included Melanippe sociata var. from
Iceland, M. friyidaria from Finmark, Coremia desiynata var. islaiulica
and C. arcticaria, the latter of which Mr. Prout thought might prove
to be only avar. of C. rnunitata ; Larmtia caesiata var. jelata from Green¬
land, L. polata from Tromso, and L. scrraria from Moscow. Mr. Kaye,
a box of Deiopeias containing series of Deiopeia speciosa from Jamaica,
D. ornatrix, and types of D. pulchella and D. bella, also a specimen of
a lepidopterous larva from New Zealand, with a fungus growth upon
it, which was probably referable to Cordyceps robertsii. Mr. Riches, a
long series of Amathes ditrapezin in bred from larvae taken on Hampstead
Heath. Mr. Riches said that the species had been obtained more
plentifully during the past year than formerly. Mr. Pickett, some
fine forms of many species, amongst which were — Brenthis s clene, dark
specimens, Abraxas yromdariata, Hipparcliia hyperantJuis ab. arete and
intermediates, Nemeophila plantayinis, with red hindwings, Anthrocera
Jilipendulae, with yellow hindwings, Dilina tiliae, very varied, and a
remarkably dark var. of Botys urticata. Mr. Bell, series of Ayrotis
corticea and A. luniyera from Sandown, also Boarmia repandata: and a
piece of buckthorn with malformed leaves ; also a careful dissection of
a pellet of indigestible substances rejected by an owl. Mr. Bacot,
some bred Pterophorina which included Aydistis bennettii, Leioptilus lieni-
yianus, Cnaemidophorus rhododactylus, Oxyptilus heterodactylm (teiicrii),
Pterophorus monodactylics and Aciptilia yalactodactyla.

Resignation of member. — It was announced that the resignation
of Mr. T. Gurney had been received. With reference to the resignation
of Mr. Bate reported at the last meeting, it was resolved unanimously
that a letter be sent requesting him to reconsider the matter.

Proposal for exhibition. — A proposal was made by Mr. Dadd and
seconded by Mr. Jennings, that it be considered whether an exhibition
should not be held at an early date. The proposal was carried.

Jan. 16th, 1900.— Resignation.— It was reported with satisfaction
that Mr. D. C. Bate had agreed to remain a member. Mr. T. F. Clarke
informed the secretaries that he wished to withdraw his membership.

Publication of Transactions. — The President asked if the meeting
desired any change from that of the previous year in the matter of
publishing the Transactions. No suggestions were forthcoming, and it

4

was therefore agreed that as previously a publishing committee should
be formed to deal with the matter.

Wimbledon lepidoptera. — Mr. May exhibited Triphaena subseqna
(comes), two banded forms, and one with the hindwings sufl'used ; a
specimen each of Ayrochola pistacina and A. litura, with dark bands
across the primaries ; an example of Glaea vaccinii of a peculiar grey
tint, somewhat corresponding with a form known to occur in Wales.

Exotic Spiiingid^:. — Mr. Kaye, a number of Sphingidae, which
included Wallengrenia aper from Columbia, Ambulyx substriyilis with a
tine dark var. from Assam, with Anyonyx testacea (ella) from the same
locality. Polyptichus pusillus from Natal, and Pseudosphinx incisa and
Ambulyx palmeri from Rio Janeiro.

Folkestone lepidoptera. — Mr. Pickett, Ayrotis tntici taken at
sugar in July, 1899. Cosmotriche potatoria bred from larvae found at
Whitsuntide, 1899, also Smerinthus ocellatus bred from a Tottenham
larva.

Agrotids. — Mr. Prout, fine series of A. tritici, A. obelisca, A.
aquilina, A. niyricans and others ; also A. tntici from Berlin, and
A. aquilina and A. obelisca from Vienna; A. niyricans from
Gratz, and A. crassa from Vienna. Mr. Dadd, many species of the
genus Ayrotis. Of the European, A. niyricans, A. perpoleta, A. tritici
and villeripennis were shown ; of the American, A. subyothica, A.
heriiis, A. introj evens and A. quadridentata were exhibited.

Discussion on the Agrotis tritici group. — The President said that
the first question to be asked was, how many species have we? A.
cursona he thought, was one of the most difficult species. He
personally had found that generally this insect had narrower forewings,
which character might be of use for separating it. As to whether this
species occurred on the Kentish coast there was much doubt. On the
Lancashire littoral it was, however, easily separated from A . tritici, the
coloration there being very distinct. A paragraph was read from
British Noctuae and their Varieties, where Mr. Tutt gives it as his
opinion that only parallel forms to A. cursoria, of A. tritici exist on
the Kent coast and that true cursoria is unrepresented. The same also
applied to A. obelisca. Mr. Dadd followed, and said that A. cursona
was generally more sandy-coloured than A. tritici. He believed that
local variation wras strong, but that in some localities all forms were to
be found together. Several of the North American species vrere
discussed, and the remarks of Speyer concerning A. aquilina were
introduced. Speyer affirming that the few A. aquilina from the south
of France are different from A. tritici, the antenme being longer and
more pectinated. Mr. Kaye asked if A. aquilina had its status solely
on the characters of the perfect insect, to which the answer was in the
affirmative. The Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, who was not present, sub¬
mitted that what we call A. aquilina is really only a marsh form of A.
tritici, and that while A. aquilina inhabits the marshes, A. tritici
frequents downs and such-like dry situations, and that the twro are
never transposed in habitat.

Feb. 6th, 1900. — Exotic Spiiingid^r. — Mr. Dadd exhibited two boxes
of foreign Sphinyidae, and Mr. Bacot also showed some exotic species of
this family. The specimens included Thyreus abbottii, Choerocampa
schenkii, C. porcellus, Elibia doliclius, Deilephila lineata and D. licornica,
with many others.

5

Rare dipteron. — Mr. Jennings, a specimen of tkeclipteron, Hyelemia
praepollus, Wild., taken at Edmonton. The specimen was caught in
August, 1896, but he had only recently been able to obtain the name
of the insect from our most eminent authority, Mr. Verrall, who had
examined it.

Anthocaris belemia. — Dr. Chapman, a living specimen of A.
belemia, and remarked on the somewhat unusual habit it had of resting,
whereby the striped underside was shown so that the stripes assumed
a vertical position.

Hesperia comma. — Mr. Pickett, a series of H. comma taken on the
Guildford downs.

Death of member. — Mr. Bell read a letter from the son of Mr. W.
Gates, a former member, in which it was announced that Mr. W. Gates
had recently died at the age of 71. Upon this Mr. Tutt moved that
the secretaries be asked to write for any manuscript notes that Mr.
Gates might have left, for the benefit of the Society, and to convey to
the son the great regret of the Society at the loss of one of its
oldest members. Mr. Clark seconded and the motion was carried.

Paper. — Mr. Kaye read a paper on “ The re-classification of the
Lepidoptera ” (Printed in the transactions).

Feb. 20th, 1900. — Magazine. — Mr. Jennings announced that he had
received the Halifax Magazine for the library.

Lepidoptera from Fusio. — Mr. Edwards exhibited three boxes of
lepidoptera taken at Fusio, and Dr. Chapman also exhibited a large
number of insects from the same locality.

Triph^na janthina, etc. — Mr. Clark, a bred specimen of T.
janthina that had been forced through the winter. Mr. Pickett exhibited
a long series of Ematurga atomaria from several localities, showing
light and dark forms.

Paper. — Mr. Donisthorpe read a paper on the “ Myrmeeopkilous
Coleoptera.” He divided it into three sections: (1) On the life-
history, mimicry and relations to the hosts of myrmeeopkilous
coleoptera. (2) On the best methods of collecting the British species.
(3) A table classifying all the British species recorded, in the manner
used by Wasmann for the mynnecopkila of Hollandisk Limburg. In
speaking about mimicry and protective resemblance, Mr. Donisthorpe
mentioned that, in certain cases, the resemblance was complete except
for colour. This was pointed out to have less significance, than at first
sight appeared, as it was known that in certain species of ants the sight was
very feeble. Many of the myrmeeopkilous coleoptera acted as scavengers,
such were some of the Staplujlinidae and Histeridae, which were to be
found in the channels with Formica rufa. Protection was said to be
afforded in a variety of ways. Amongst the Coccinellidae, Coccinella
distincta was mimicked by Clijthra 4 -punctata. Others are able to
protect themselves by curling themselves up, while Atemeles emarginatus
imitates the movements of ants. All true guests were said to have
tufts of golden hair situated on the abdomen generally. It was known
that certain species in the genus Atemeles even changed their host at
different times. In his remarks on the method of working for these
myrmeeopkilous coleoptera, Mr. Donisthorpe had found that the spring
and autumn were the best periods of the year, but it frequently
happened that some days were favourable with no apparent reason.

6

At the close of the paper Mr. Heasler proposed a hearty vote of thanks
which was seconded by Mr. Bacot and carried unanimously. Messrs.
Clark, Tntt, and Jennings took part in the discussion that followed.

Dr. T. A. Chapman read a paper entitled “ A few days at Fusio
(printed in the Transactions).

March 6th, 1900. — Cilix glaucata. — Mr. Kaye exhibited an un¬
usually pale C. (jlaucata with types for comparison.

Preserved larvae. — Mr. Pickett, a large number of preserved
larvte, including Stauropus j'agi, Jocheaera alni and Centra fare ala. A
freshly emerged specimen of Amorplia populi, that had been forced,
was also shown.

Syntomis phegea. — Mr. Bacot, Syntomis pheyea with larvte. In refer¬
ring to the specimens, Mr. Bacot spoke of them as Artiadae. Mr. Kaye
said he thought that Sir George Hampson was correct in placing
Syntomis and allied genera in a separate family, Syntomidae. The vein
8 of the hindwing being always absent, and the colouring also being
generally of quite exceptional brilliancy, whilst in a large number of
cases portions of the wing were transparent. Mr. Bacot remarked that
ovum and larva were quite Arctiid. The President submitted that
again it was a matter of opinion whether Syntomidae could be proved
sufficiently distinct from Arctiadae for family separation.

Discussion on larvae.— Mr. Prout, from the chair, made some
remarks on the theory of a fixed hybernating stage. He alluded to
Acidalia rusticata as a case contrary to the theory, that species he himself
knowing to go into hybernation at the last moult and also in the last
but one. Mr. Bacot made a strong point of the different stages in the
existence of larvae at which they become specialised. In some groups
the larva is generalised in the first instar and becomes specialised later,
such for instance as those of some of the butterflies, while the Lachneidae
(La.-u oca mpidae) such as Cosmotriche potatoria and Kutricha quercifolia
were specialised from the egg. The Sphingidae were also well known
to be highly specialised from the egg. Mr. Bacot further touched on the
subject of in-breeding in captivity, he thought that probably mortality
was due to some extent, not so much to in-breeding as to insuffi¬
cient attention. Mr. Prout said that before leaving the question
of the highly specialised Sphingid larva, he would like to say that in
a paper by Piepers the conclusion was reached that the horn present on
the 12th segment was once of use to the larva, but is now gradually
becoming atrophied. Mr. Tutt who made many useful suggestions
said that, with regard to hybernation in a particular instar,
those species that have a large geographical area might (and
probably often did) have different stages in which they were
able to hybernate. Lasiocampa qitercus was known to hybernate in a
different instar in the south of England from that in the bleak moorlands
where the imago presents a slightly different facies and is known as
calltmac. There was no doubt there was often a reaction on the part of
larvai to their environment. Those larvte that have to exist under
various conditions would he quickly exterminated if they could not
respond to those varying conditions. Mr. Kaye thought Mr. Tutt’s
remarks were well illustrated by an analogous case in the culture of
certain plants. Those that have a wide geographical range (particu-

7

larly in relation to altitude) being easy of cultivation, while those that
are specialised to some particular climate are the most difficult.

March 20th, 1900. — Japanese lepidoptera. — Mr. Kaye exhibited
two boxes of Japanese moths containing almost wholly those species
belonging to the European Palaearctic Region, many of them being
found in Britain ; amongst the specimens were Heliophila turca,
Agrotis segetum, Bombycia Jiuctuosa, Malacosoma neustria, Acidalia
remutata and Porthetria dispar. Mr. Prout also had brought three boxes
of Japanese lepidoptera containing chiefly those species that were not to
be found in Europe. Amongst these, however, were some fine Zunosoma
punctana. Mr. Prout referred to some European Zonosomas also
exhibited, and called attention to the fact that two species had recently
been separated by their genitalia and also by their life-histories.

Phibalapteryx aquata. — Dr. Sequeira, a specimen of P. aquata,
believed to be British, with several P. vitalbata for comparison. He
remarked that P. aquata occcurred sometimes on the continent where
clematis was absent.

Honeysuckle twisted on birch. — Mr. S. J. Bell, a remarkable
piece of birch stem with honeysuckle tightly twisted round it.

Pyrausta purpuralis and P. ostrinalis. — Mr. Kaye, a large number
of P. purpuralis and P. ostrinalis, mixed, and gave it as his opinion
that it was not always possible to separate the two, and that for want
of evidence as to life-histories he did not regard them as two species.
Mr. Tutt objected and stated that in his opinion they were abundantly
distinct, and occurred separately and abundantly in many localities ;
P. ostrinalis, he stated, was in countless numbers at Bourg St.
Maurice in the Tarentaise, whilst P. purpuralis was entirely absent ;
similarly in Britain the habitats of the two species were quite distinct.

Invitation from Mr. Hanbury. — A letter was read from Mr. F. J.
Hanbury inviting those members who wished, to inspect his collec¬
tions at his house on March 26th.

Letter from Royal Microscopical Society. — A letter was read
from the Curator of the Royal Microscopical Society, bringing to notice
the name of Mr. Adolf Hempel, who was collecting in Brazil, and
wished to find buyers for the specimens collected.

Announcement of conversazione. — It was publicly announced
that the date for the forthcoming conversazione had been fixed for
Tuesday, April 24th.

April 3rd, 1900. — Polyommatus corydon aberrations. — Mr. Clark
exhibited some finely marked and other specimens of Polyommatus
corydon, which he had acquired from the collection of the late Samuel
Stevens ; some of the specimens having the spots almost obsolete, others
with the spots coalescing, whilst some were curious dusky specimens.
It was stated that some of the specimens were labelled Brighton. Mr.
Kaye and Mr. Pickett both remarked that aberrations of this species
were of quite common occurrence at Dover.

Forced insects. — Mr. Pickett, several insects that he had hatched
indoors, and stated that Hybernia leucophaearia was taken in nature
between March 18th and 20th.

Aporia crat.egi. — Mr. Bacot, hybernating lame of Aporia
crataegi.

8

Conversazione. — Mr. Prout reminded all members of the forth¬
coming conversazione and asked that all might contribute something.

Discussion on the Micro-lepidoptera of the London District. —
Mr. Prout called on Mr. Bate to open the discussion and to make some
remarks on his exhibit of “ Micros.” Mr. Bate on rising said the
first thing to be settled was — -where do “ Macros ” end and “ Micros ”
begin ? Many writers had made the division above the Pyrales, that
family heading the “ Micros ” so called. Mr. Bate went on to
endeavour to account for the general neglect at the hands of most
lepidopterists of these smaller insects. The pinning was granted to
be a difficulty that was very real. From their less conspicuousness,
some Micros considered rare, were not infrequently turned up in numbers,
which fact of itself should be a strong inducement to many to take up
the study of this division. Micros were ubiquitous, in one hour the
speaker mentioned having taken as many as 30 species from a fence in
Dulwich. The setting was far easier than was commonly supposed,
and the use of cotton was preferable to that of paper strips. The
wings if quite fresh could often be blown into the correct position for
display in the cabinet. A large number of “ Micros” were exhibited
taken in the neighbourhood of Dulwich. The most interesting of
these was Schoenobius forficellm. Mr. Prout said with regard to the divi¬
sion he thought we must begin the “Micro” division with the Pyrales.
He remarked on the difficulty of dealing with the Tortrices from the fact
that there were no structural characters to work with as in the Tineina.
A curious fact was related as to how Mr. Taylor had on one occasion on
Wimbledon Common had a “ Tortrix night” at sugar, i.e., one on which
only species of that family appeared. It was remarkable that on the same
night, that Halias quercana and H. bicolurana also appeared, and the
natural question arose, Are these insects Tortrices ? Mr. Clark said the
setting of Tineina was no more difficult than that of the larger groups.
Mr. Dadd supported the experience of Mr. Taylor by saying that he
had had a similar night at Winchmore Hill, when also H. prasinana
turned up. Mr. Prout inquired if anyone knew how many of the
Pterophorina were known to occur in the London district. He himself
knew of Platyptilia yonodactyla, Pterophorm monodactylus, Aciptilia
pentadactyla and Alucita liexadactyla.

April 17th, 1900.— Spilosoma mendica.— Mr. Kaye exhibited a long
series of Spilusoma mendica bred from ova, and read some detailed notes
concerning the emergences and variation of the species.

Pachys strataria. — Mr. Pickett, a living specimen of Pachys
strataria from Chingford.

Paper on Phorodesma smarag daria. — At the commencement of the
paper Mr. Burrows stated the enormous difficulty of finding the larva of
this species. In England itwas only to be metwith on Artemisia viaritma.
It was said to have been found by Koch on Achillea millefolia, and at the
present time it is not contradicted but the statement required further con¬
firmation. Phorodesma pnstiilata was the only other species that had the
curious habit of clothing itself with pieces of the food-plant. The use
of this clothing in 1\ smaraydaria was now readily appreciable, it
having been ascertained that these fragments shut up small quantities
of air bubbles which, when the larva is subjected to floods, it makes use
of to keep itself afloat on the water. The use of similar particles by

9

P. pustulata can have no such function as the larva is an oak feeder,
and, moreover, feeds generally high up. Careful details were given
as to how the fragments in P. smaragdaria were affixed. It was said
that there were special spines, which were in excess of the usual tuber¬
cular spines, to hold these pieces. These special tubercles and spines
were situated on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th abdominal segments above
and on the bottom of the 5th and 8th. The variation of the imago
was then considered at some length, and although it had been said there
was very little variation Mr. Burrows had detected a great deal. The
form prasinaria was by some considered a distinct species. The
markings were the chief feature of the variation, colour variation
being rare. One of the most uncommon forms was that without the
discoidal spot. In colour, a form had been taken that was quite blue
instead of green. Some very interesting details were given as to the
habits of the egg-laying, larva, and perfect insect, those of the former
being, it was believed, submitted for the first time. Mr. Clark proposed
a hearty vote of thanks which Mr. Bacot seconded. Mr. Kaye, in
supporting, asked if the water in the localities where P. smaragdaria
fed was brackish enough to freeze, and also if it were known whether
this species was subject to attacks of ichneumons. Mr. Burrows on
rising to reply, said that in great floods the feeding-ground of P.smarag-
tlaria was completely inundated and in severe frosts completely frozen;
no effect seemed to be made on this insect however. He had never
heard of an ichneumon stung specimen.

May 1st, 1900. — Ova. — Mr. Dadd exhibited ova of Pachnobia leuco-
graplia and of Xylocampa areola.

Abraxas grossulariata aberrations. — Mr. Clark, some of the curious
streaked specimens of A. grossulariata bred from Aberdeen. Mr. Bell
also showed a melanic larva of the same species, which was completely
black except the head.

Acanthopsyche opacella. — Dr. Chapman, five $ Acanthopsyche
opacella with some $ s which, it was pointed out, had six rings of woolly
hair on the body. It was previously known that there was some wool,
but not so placed as was now shown to be the case.

Chesias rufata. — Dr. Chapman, some specimens of C. rufata from
southern Europe. These were very large and of a grey banded form.

Geometrid.e from Norway. — Mr. Prout exhibited the specimens of
Geometridae collected in Norway by Dr. Chapman. These included
Thera variata var. obeliscata but without variation. Emmelesia albidata,
in which none of the specimens were so extreme as are to be found in
Shetland. Melanippe montanata ah. fuscomarginata, Cidana abrasaria
a long and varied series, Bupalus piniarius of the white form as
known in Scotland, and Psychophora sabini. Some larva? were also
shown of Meiitaea cinxia from the Isle of Wight, of bis own taking, and
larvae of Proatia eppinyella from Chingford.

Melalopha pigra. — Mr. Pickett, some Melaloplia piyra, one of
which was an extremely dark and interesting form.

Cyaniris argiolus. — Mr. Kaye said he had seen some C. argiolus at
Worcester Park for the first time since 1888. Several members
mentioned its having been taken very close to London, and Mr. Dadd
said that it had been suggested that it was sometimes imported as ova
in holly brought in at Christmas time from the country.

10

Intoxication of insects. — Mr. May raised a question as to whether
moths at sugar become intoxicated or only drop off for protection.
Dr. Chapman suggested that at sallow catkins, moths cannot become
intoxicated, yet they drop off in the same way ; it was assumed that
protection was the sole cause, and he did not consider that insects became
intoxicated.

Discussion on Nomenclature. — This was introduced by Mr. Dadd,
who stated that by nomenclature we should indicate the order, family,
genus and species to which a given creature belongs. Haworth
favoured the view of indication by special affixes for the different
families. The arrangement has, however, not been adhered to. With
genera the names should indicate the common affinities of those species
that are included in that genus. English names were frequently much
more descriptive than the scientific one. Latin and Greek names were
very frequently only fanciful. Mr. Dadd was of opinion that discoverers
of new species should not lend their names for the names of such.
With reference to the great multiplicity of generic names, it was
suggested that there should be a time limit for priority in resurrecting
old names. Varieties of species were recommended to be termed var.
A, B, &c., or even numbered, but not named. Instead of dividing
existing genera up into a number of smaller genera it was urged that
the system of sections should be employed. Dr. Chapman in proposing
a vote of thanks to Mr. Dadd for introducing the subject, said one of
the great things to be aimed at in a name was finality. Get the
original name and keep it ! He thought that the specific name ought
to be an unique name and deprecated the use of the same name
over and over again in different genera. The present system was
a binomial one of which the first name was classificatory and the
second descriptive. The classificatory name must be altered if
it be necessary. Mr. Kaye seconded the vote and suggested a trinomial
system by which there should be two classificatory names and a
descriptive one. Mr. Nicholson thought that it was imperative that
any system should be universal, and agreed that names should so
far as it was possible, also be descriptive. Messrs. Bell and
May thought that final unanimity was an impossibility, but Mr.
Prout in the course of his remarks, mentioned that the International
Congress of Zoology was considering the matter of unanimity and that
such a thing need not be despaired of. Mr. Prout saw no objection to
the use of sections in splitting up unwieldy genera. He was of opinion
that the resurrecting of original names had better be done now than
perhaps later on. With reference to the trinomial system suggested,
he saw some good in its use for purposes of writing. Mr. Dadd then
replied to the vote of thanks accorded him.

May 15th, 1900. — European Geometrids. — Mr. Prout exhibited
some interesting Geometrids from various parts of Europe, including
Acidalia perochrana from Innsbruck, A. rufaria, A. huniiliata, and
strongly-marked Strenia clathrata from Wolfsberg. Cleoyene niveata
from Sau Alpe. Strenia (/larearia from Ivor Alp, and variable Kmmeleda
minorata from Heiligenblut. Several British insects were also shown
which were to go into the Society’s cabinet.

Piiaretra humicis. — Mr. Dadd, larvae of P. rumicis.

Triph.-ena janthina. — Mr. Clark exhibited some T, janthina bred

11

by forcing, and gave some interesting dates of the emergences, and
suggested that there were two periods at which the emergences of the
same brood take place. The dates given were February 19th, 21st,
27th, and then April 28th, 29th.

Cyaniris argiolus.— Mr. Pickett showed specimens of Cyaniris
argidlus taken on May 5th in Epping Forest.

Papilio machaon aberration, etc. — Mr. Kaye, a fine ab. of Papilio
machaon, in which the marginal band of the hind wings was much
extended and which joined the much enlarged discoidal spot. He also
exhibited some young lame of Drepana lacertinaria.

Aglia tau, etc. — Mr. Bacot, larvae of Aglia tan in their first skin.
Mr. Riches, larvae of Amathes ditrapezium and A. tnangulum from
Hampstead Heath. Mr. Nicholson, gall-flies from a swollen blackberry
stem.

Conversazione report. — Mr. Bell read the report of the conversa¬
zione held on April 24th. Mr. May proposed and Mr. Bacot seconded
a vote of thanks to Mr. Bell, and all those who cooperated with him,
for their energy in carrying out the work in connection with the
conversazione.

Hoxton Field Club. — Mr Bell read a letter from the Secretary
of the Hoxton Field Club asking if any help could be given.

Paper. — Mr. Ideasler read a paper received from Mr. Jarvis on “ The
land shells of Jamaica.” The paper was well illustrated with specimens,
and maps of the localities where the shells were collected were
exhibited. Mr. Clark proposed and Mr. Kaye seconded a vote of
thanks to Mr. Jarvis for writing, and also to Mr. Ideasler for reading,
this paper. The vote was put and carried unanimously.

Discussion concerning pup.®. — Mr. Nicholson, rising to open the
discussion, referred to the matter of digging for pupse. He said that
in his experience this method of obtaining insects was not sufficiently
profitable. Mr. Clark said he had done a great deal of pupa-digging
at willow, poplar, &c., and had met with varying success. A row of
lime trees had been found to be a good situation. Forest trees rarely
paid for the trouble. Mr. Bell, contrary to general experience, had dug
a large number of pupie on one occasion in the New Forest. Mr. Dadd
said that his experience was that a large number of empty pupae were
to be found. Mr. Nicholson then called attention to the remarkable
habit of Nyssia hispid aria in going down such a long way into the earth
to pupate. He had himself dug pupae of this species at a depth of 2ft.
Mr. May suggested that this species required exertion to get a sufficient
circulation. Mr. May said also that when breeding he thought it safer
to leave pupie alone in the earth. Dr. Chapman asked if A. liispidaria
went to such a depth for the benefit of development. Mr. Prout
remarked that the alleged great depth had been challenged. He said
that this species liked hard ground and went down till it found such.
Mr. Cox said that many la r vie can be induced to pupate at certain trees
if the ground be loosened a little on the surface ; in his experience any
side of the tree paid equally well. Trees and hedgerows he had found
productive. Mr. Pickett noted the unusual position in which he had
found pupie of Lasiocampa querciis, viz., on bramble. Mr. Bacot
referred to larvae which protect their pupae with cocoons. He said
these larvie appear to endeavour to save a little silk by spinning up in
a corner or next to another cocoon. Mr. Kaye gave as his experience

12

in hatching pup* that a bell glass was an excellent covering, as with
slight moistening a humid atmosphere could be maintained such as
was beneficial to emergence. Dr. Chapman referred to some of the
scientific aspects of a pupa. He said that the lepidopterous pupa was
descended from the nymphs of insects that had no pupal stage. The
pupa as an intermediate stage has brought about specialisation in the
larval form. He considered that the quiescent pupa was evolved for
protective purposes.

June 5th, 1900. — Lozopera francillonana. — Dr. Chapman exhi¬
bited some specimens of L. francillonana with its parasite Clielonus
inanitis ; also a piece of the food-plant, Ferula communis, showing the
entry hole of the larva, prepared exit holes, utilised exit holes with
empty pupae in situ, exits of parasites and tunnels made by the larva.
This prepared stem showed that the larva makes its entry under the
petiole and works its way upward and finally outward, leaving a thin
layer of epidermis at the exit ; if this be faulty the larva fills up the
hole with silk.

Nemeorius lucina.- — Mr. Pickett, specimens of N. lucina taken the
previous day on the Guildford Downs, including a specimen having
some of the spots on the hindwings almost yellow instead of the normal
brown colour ; also Callophrys nibi, Cyaniris aryiolus, Folyommatus
alexis, &c., from the same district, and a living specimen of Arctia
villica bred from a Deal larva.

Psychids.— Mr. Prout reported that he had been successful in
beating for “ Proutias ” at Epping, chiefly from hawthorn.

Sesia oynipiformis. — Dr. Chapman reported S. cynipifurmis in a
wound in oak bark at Epping.

Secretarial communications. — Mr. Bell read a telegram received
from Dr. Sequeira advising that Mrs. Clark, the wife of one of the
Society’s Vice-presidents, died on the 3rd inst. Mr. Prout proposed
a vote of condolence, which was unanimously adopted. The death at
Port Elizabeth of Mr. E. Iieasler, a member of the Society, was also
reported. A proposal from the Chair that the Secretary should write
to Mr. Id. Heasler expressing the Society’s sincere sympathy and
regret was supported by all present.

Committee report. — Mr. H. A. Fuller, on behalf of the Committee
appointed to make arrangements for the Annual Excursion, reported
that Barthorne Woods (near Effingham Junction) had been fixed upon
as a locality likely to give good collecting. Full details of times of
trains, reduction of fares, &c., were given, and June 23rd suggested as
a favourable date. Dr. Chapman proposed, and Mr. Bell seconded,
the adoption of the Committee’s programme, and at the Chairman’s
suggestion Mr. H. A. Fuller was appointed leader of the expedition.

June 19th, 1900. — Lepidoptera. — Mr. Bacot exhibited specimens
of Anthocaris India and A. beleniia and two examples of Thais polyxena ;
one of the last was a striking aberration, the black markings on the
forewings varying from the type both in formation and disposition.
Some larvae of Pachnohia leucoyrapha, a pair of Spilosoma urticae, very
strongly marked, and ova of Centra erminea. Mr. Bacot further
exhibited ova of S. urticae, and larvae of Axylia pntris, which he
placed at the disposal of any members who were in want of them.

13

Habrostola asclepiadis, etc. — Dr. Chapman, a living specimen of
H. asclepiadis, the close resemblance of which to H. triplasia was
remarked upon. A living specimen of IAbythea celtis was a.lso shown, a
species, which Dr. Chapman considered one of the most interesting of
European butterflies. The genus Libythea was distributed nearly all
over the world. He drew attention to the very long palpi and sug¬
gested that these served as a support to the antennae, which are held
forward when the insect is at rest.

Ova from crossed patrings. — Mr. Pickett, ova, the result of
pairings between Amorpha populi $ and Smerintlius ocellatus 5 , and
vice versa, also between Dilina tiliae $ and S. ocellatus $ .

Larv.e of Zonosomas. — Mr. Prout, young larvae of Zonosoma
punctana and Z. porata , also specimens of Tephrosia bistortata taken
on the underdid:' between St. Lawrence and Niton, Isle of Wight, on
April 10th.

Annual excursion. — Mr. H. A. Fuller reported that Mr. Pickett
had drawn his attention to the fact that the daily excursion rate to
Effingham Junction was lower than the fare quoted by the South-
Western Railway for the party. He accordingly wrote the railway
company asking for an explanation, who replied that the rate quoted
was the usual one for pleasure parties, at the same time, they con¬
firmed the excursion fare and enclosed handbill re same. It was
therefore decided that each member should take his own ticket at the
lower fare.

Secretarial communication. — Mr. Bell announced that both Mr.
Kaye and himself would be out of town on the occasion of the next
meeting. Mr. Sauze had kindly undertaken to perform the secretarial
duties on that date.

July 3rd, 1900. — Library acquisitions. — Vol. 8 of Buckler's Larvae
was purchased and the Journal of the City of London Collcye Science
Society Avas received gratuitously.

Callimorpha dominula, etc. — Mr. Pickett exhibited some extra
large specimens of Callimorpha dominula, bred, and showing
some aberration in the Avhite patches ; Pterostoma palpina, bred
from willoAv from ova from a captured ? at Guildford. On
members mentioning that they had rarely met with this species,
Mr. Dadd said the larvae could be taken on osier in September. A
much varied series of Anyerona prunaria and three Arctia villica from
St. Margaret’s Bay, one being asymmetrical Avithout three Avhite spots
on the right fore-Aving, Avhich were normal on the left.

Smerinthus populi ab. — Mr. Mera, an aberration of S. populi, in
which the reddish patches on the hindwings had disappeared, their
place being taken by obscure pale yellow patches. A second specimen
exhibited was normal, although both were taken as larvie at the same
time on salloAV. He also sho\A-ed a specimen of Lasiocampa A*ar. callunae
from Aberdeen parents. The short life-history was exceptional. The
egg hatched in June, 1899, and the larva pupated in the autumn of
tbe same year, hybernation taking place in the pupal stage. The imago
emerged June 11th, 1900, and Avas of the quercus form.

Hemaris bombyliformis. — Mr. Bloomfield, a specimen of H. bomby-
liformis taken at Horsley on the occasion of the Society’s excursion on
June 23rd. Some bred specimens of Spilosoma urticae AArere also shown.

14

Communications. — Mr. Pickett said that the eggs from the pairings
of Smerinthus ocellatus and S. populi had proved to be infertile.

Excursion. — Mr. Fuller said the annual excursion had been highly
successful, with an attendance of 20, but lists of captures that he
embodied in a report were not to hand yet.

Discussion on the scarcity of butterflies in England. — Mr.
Dadd compared England to its disparagement, in the number of species
obtainable in one day, with the Continent. Individual species, he
thought, were getting scarcer, naming Vanessa io as a case in point,
and although Drgas paphia still swarmed in the New Forest, in his
experience he did not find A. aglaia or A. adippe at all common, even
Pararge egeria he thought was scarcer. Mr. Prout reminded the
meeting of the scarcity of Pie ns brassicae about 1891, when fears were
entertained of its becoming a rarity. Now again its numbers had fully
recovered. Some allusion was also made to the few specimens seen in
the autumn of butterflies which hybernated, e.g., Gonepteryx rhamni,
compared with the numbers seen Hying in the spring, and it was thought
that many do not fly at all in the autumn but go at once into
hybernation.

July 17th, 1900. — Lepidoptera from Woodford. — Mr. C. Oldham
exhibited the following, all from his garden at Woodford, Essex. Plnsia
gamma of a fine red form, Habrostola triplasia, Mamestra trifolii,
Dianthoecia cucubali and Oligia bicoloria.

Abraxas grossulariata aberration.- — Mr. Pickett, a series of bred
A. grossulariata showing much variation. These included a specimen
in which all the usual yellow markings were replaced by black, a pale
specimen with the black markings almost grey, and the yellow almost
indistinguishable, and yet another finely powdered all over with minute
black dots.

Donations.— The Librarian acknowledged the receipt of the May
and June parts of the Entomological News.

Larva of Abraxas grossulariata in J uly. — Mr. Pickett mentioned
that he had beaten larvae of A. grossulariata at Oxshott as late as
July 14 th.

Aug. 7th, 1900. — Coleoptera. — Dr. Chapman exhibited living
specimens of Coleoptera taken in Switzerland, belonging to the genus
Crina.

Lymantria monacha, etc. — Mr. Pickett, a series of L. monacha,
comprising light, dark and intermediate forms, also a series of Plebeius
aegon taken on July 14th, at Oxshott.

MelitjEa cinxia. — Mr. Riches, a series of M. cinxia bred from larvae
taken by Mr. Prout in the Isle of Wight. Mr. Riches mentioned
that he had bred eighteen specimens from nineteen pupae.

Death of a member. — Mr. Riches referred to the death of Mr. W.
G. Pearce, of which the Society had received no notification.

Aug. 21st, 1900. — Abraxas grossulariata aberration. — Mr. Clark
exhibited several vars. of Abraxas grossulariata, including a specimen
with upperwings from base to usual yellow band entirely black.

Food-plants of Phorodesma smaragdaria. — Mr. A. W. Mera read
some notes on behalf of Mr. Burrows with reference to the food-plants

15

of Phnrodesma smaragdaria. Three batches of twelve lame each were
sleeved out on Achillea millefolium (yarrow), Tanacetum vulgare (tansy),
and French lavender respectively, on July 5th, when they were newly-
hatched. An examination of the sleeves on August 20th resulted as
follows. Of those on yarrow two had pupated. This it was said
contradicted Mr. Burrows’ statement that the larva would not feed on
this plant. It appears as if they will do so if they are fed continuously
on the same plant from the egg. Of the batch on tansy only eight
were left, which were much darker than those on yarrow. The remain¬
ing brood fed on French lavender was only one short of its original
number. The larvae were much paler than those on the tansy and only
about half the size of some of them. The only brood, therefore, which
produced a partial second brood was that fed on yarrow, which plant
is refused by larvae taken in a wild state.

Macroglossa stellatarum. — Mr. Bacot remarked that larvae of
Macroglossa stellatarum seemed plentiful, and that he had taken some
at Broxbourne and many other places. One of the larvae in his
possession was pale green, while the rest were dark olive-green. Mr.
Clark stated that he had known pupae of M. stellatarum to go over the
winter and emerge in the following summer. This was contrary to
the experience of other members present.

Sep. 4th, 1900. — Mr. Tutt submitted a copy of the Report of the
South Eastern Union of Scientific Societies.

Aberdeen lepidoptera. — Dr. Sequeira, Triphaena subsequa, with
very red forewings, and A 'plena monoylypha very dark. Mr. Clark,
Amathes sobrina a tine series.

Variation of Polyommatus corydon.— Mr. Pickett, a long variable
series of Polyommatus corydon with one individual of a peculiar uni-
colorous brown tint. Mr. Pickett also exhibited, from Folkestone, a
large number of Eurymus hyale and E. croceus with one var. helice of
the latter, some Vanessa cardui, and a magnificent aberration of
Polyommatus alexis ( ayestis ) with confluent spots on the underside and
with the pupils to nearly all the eyes obsolete.

Chcerocampa porcellus. — Mr. C. Oldham, Choerocampa porcellus
with much of the red colouring replaced by yellowish-brown, and
Triphaena fimbria taken in his garden at Woodford.

Holiday Notes. — Mr. Tutt gave some notes of his recent trip to
Larche in the Basses-Alps. He said as long ago as 1850 the locality
had been explored by Donzel, and it was remarkable that nearly all
the now known scarce insects occurring there were detected at that
early date. On the way up to Larche, Barcelonette was passed, and
here many generally accepted mountain insects were observed near the
river-bed, where also Erebia neoridas was seen. Anthrocera fausta and
A. carniolica were to be found on the same ground, but differed
much in their habits. Polyommatus daman was seen in swarms. The
“ blues” were in great numbers, and Mr. Tutt thought that possibly
as many as two-thirds of the Palasarctic members of the genus might
be obtained in the Guil Valley. The pastures at Larche were said’to
be magnificent, with a great wealth of wild flowers, to which great
numbers of lepidoptera flocked. Some remarks followed on some of
the Erebias seen — E. scipio on steep slopes, E. neoridas as high up as
6000ft., and E. yoante coming in for most attention.

16

Sep. 18th, 1900. — Second brood of Acidalia dimidiata. — Mr. W.
J. Kaye exhibited specimens, bred, of a second brood of Acidalia
dimidiata ; these hatched between August 27th and September 1st,
from larvae that hatched July 26th. Some hybrid Melalopha curtula
X pigra were also shown.

Macroglossa stellatarum. — Mr. Pickett, a specimen of Macroglossa
stellatarum bred on September 18th, from a larva found on August
15th. He mentioned that the larvae of this species had been very
abundant this year.

Noctuids from Deal. — Mr. Bell, some Noctuids the result of a
single night’s sugaring at Deal; these included some specimens of
Agrotis nigricans, A. tritici, A. pitta, and Mamestra chenopodii.

Acidalia species, etc. — Mr. Prout, Acidalia rusticata and A.
inter jectaria, giant specimens, reared chiefly on withered dandelion
leaves, Acidalia imitaria showing extremes of colour variation.
Some other specimens shown were, Porthetria dispar an abnormal $
blotched on the forewing with ? coloration. Pharetra menyanthidis
of the type form, bred from Aberdeen, and ab. suffasa, Tutt, bred from
Yorkshire, also a brood of Melanippe galiata from Torquay ; the ova of
these were laid July 19th, 1899, by captured 7 , and nineteen moths
emerged August 30th- September 5th, 1899, while eighteen emerged
May lTth-.June 14th, 1900. Five of the autumn and four of the
spring were of a handsome form with chalky-white ground colour with
dark central band. Very few agreed with the forms the exhibitor had
met with in the Isle of Wight.

Eurymus croceus, E. hyale and Papilio machaon. — Mr. Bloom¬
field, examples from Ringwood of Eurymus croceus and E. hyale, also
some of the var. lielice of the former ; also Lithosia griseola var.
stramineola. In reference to the specimens of Eurymus, Mr. Tutt
remarked that the E. hyale from Ringwood were much more suffused
in the margins with black than the specimens exhibited at the previous
meeting. Mr. Bloomfield mentioned that a cousin of hishad, at Ringwood,
caught a specimen of Papilio machaon. Mr. Tutt said that P. machaon
had been seen in several parts of the South of England and that
recently at a meeting of the South London Entomological Society,
Mr. Moore had intimated that the species had been very abundant
near Boulogne, and suggested that it was possible that a few 2 s had
come across in the spring and laid eggs on these shores, and from
which the present specimens had emerged. It was also pointed out
that Eurymus croceus had probably followed the same course, as there
had been no observed influx of specimens, and the same had been true
in 1877 and 1892 when the species was abundant. Mr. Tutt also
said that E. croceus had not such a wide range in northern and central
Europe as E. hyale. When the former occurs in great numbers in the
northern parts of the continent it is almost as phenomenal as with us ;
with E. hyale the case was different, the species always being present,
at least in the northern part of central Europe, and not subject to so
great fluctuations.

Some remarks on Sphingid.e. — Mr. Bacot raised a very interesting
point with regard to the different subfamilies of Sphingidae. He said
it was a matter of great difficulty to get members of the subfamily
Sphinginae to lay ova. With the Smennthinae no such difficulty was
experienced. He considered that those species that feed on the wing

17

required nourishment for the proper formation of the eggs before
laying, while such insects as the Smerinthids provided the nourishment
during the larval existence. Dr. Chapman remarked that there was
no nitrogenous matter in sugar, but nevertheless thought there might
be some action derived from this nourishment.

Oct. 2nd, 1900. — Trinidad Papilios.— Mr. Kaye exhibited a box
containing many $ and ? specimens of Papilio zeuxis, Lucas, and
Papilio alyattes, Feld., from Trinidad. He said that he thought it
highly probable that these two species were in reality only one. He
mentioned that his friend, Mr. Urich, in Trinidad, was at the present
time breeding them with a view to establishing this supposed fact.

Leucoma chrysorrikea. — Mr. Clark, some Lencoma chrysoirhoea,
bred from Folkestone. The specimens were very distinctly dotted
with black on the marginal portion of the wing.

Vanessa atalanta. — Mr. Pickett, Vanessa atalanta bred, showing
a tendency in some of the specimens to yellow coloration in the
marginal band of the secondaries.

Parnasius delicts. — Dr. Chapman, a long series of Parnassian delivs
from the Engadine. One of these had the usual red spot on the lower
portion of the hindwing black. A number of Heterocera were also
shown from Pontresina and Guarda.

Melanthia bicolorata.— Mr. Prout, a long variable series of
Melanthia bicolorata from Forres. Taken as a whole the specimens
were larger than southern examples. Some very fine phases of the
form known as var. plumbata were included, and also a giant white
specimen with a very dark central band. Mr. Prout remarked on the
peculiarly different habit in the north, of the larvae feeding on alder,
while in the south it was always found on various species of Primus.

Quedius lateralis. — Mr. TI. Heasler, from Wicken, Quedius lateralis,
Cholera fumata, and C. watsoni.

Amathes glareosa. — Mr. Riches, Amathes ylareosa from Shetland,
also some larvae of Rupithecia sabfalrata found in his garden feeding
on tansy.

Communication. — Papilio machaon introduced into Essex, etc. —
Mr. Kaye called the attention of members to some paragraphs in the
September numbers of “ Country Life,” where it was stated that 500
larvae of Papilio machaon had been turned down in Essex, and also
that similar attempts had been made with Parnassian apollo and
Euvanessa antiopa.

Vote of Condolence. — Mr. Nicholson moved a vote of condolence
with Mrs. Pearce upon the death of her husband, who had been for
some time a member of this Society. Mr. Riches seconded the vote.

Oct. 16th, 1900. — Japanese Lyc.enids. — Mr. Kaye exhibited some
Lycaenidae from Japan, with specimens of the same species from
Britain for comparison. These included Plebeian aeyon and Cyaniris
aryiolns, both species being very large from Japan. Chrysophanus
phlaeas with var. eleas and intermediates. It was pointed out that in
even typical C. phlaeas, from Japan, the markings on the underside
were much more pronounced and distinct than in British examples.

Lepidoptera from Woodford, etc. — Mr. Oldham, Jaspidia perla
from Woodford, and Spilosoma lubriciprda from the Isle of Ely.

18

Folkestone insects. — Mr. Pickett, specimens of Macroglossa
stellatarum bred from Folkestone larvie, also some Melaloplia anachoreta
the produce of a third brood.

Hydrelia unca.— Mr. V. Eric Shaw, a series of Hydrelia unca taken
in the New Forest.

Notolophus antiqua, etc. — Mr. Clark, Notolophus antiqua bred from
Aberdeen. The specimens were of a rather larger size than usual.
The larvae were found on heather in numbers. Some Arctia caja of
a second brood were also exhibited.

Smerinthus ocellatus ab. — -Mr. L. W. Newman submitted for
exhibition a particularly fine aberration of Smerinthus ocellatus with
very pale hindwings without any red coloration. Also some fine
Abraxas yrossulariata with the median portion of the wing much
suffused with black.

Callimorpha hera, etc. — Mr. Riches, from south Devon, Callimorpha
hera and some Spilosoma urticae from Eastbourne. The President
remarked concerning these latter that he had not previously heard of
Eastbourne as a locality.

Agrotis, etc. — The Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, exhibited from
Mucking Ayrotis segetiun abs. catenatus, Haw., and pectinatus, Haw.,
Agrotis nigricans, a remarkably pale form Avith scarcely a trace of any
markings. Agrotis saucta abs. nigrocosta, Tutt, and majuscula, Haw.,
in the latter form, the dark shade of nigrocosta spreads oArer the Avhole
forewing. A form of the same species Avas shoAvn as ab. stictica of
Blanchard. Peridroma ypsilon (suffusa) a pale form with the usual
colour of the basal portion of foreAving entirely absent. Hama abjecta
ab. vanegata, Stgr., and A 'plena monoglypha a ATery dark specimen with
all the transverse lines and the outlines of the reniform and orbicular
stigmata pale.

Manduca atropos. — Mr. Sauze reported that he had hatched out a
specimen of Manduca atropos on September 30th, Avithoutany forcing,
and thought this rather an early date for such an emergence.

Nov. 6th, 1900. — Living Manduca atropos, etc. — The Rev. C. R.
N. Burrows, three living specimens of Manduca atropos Avhich Avhen
handled squeaked very audibly, also a long series of Aporopkyla lutulenta
taken during the year at sugar at Mucking.

Agrotis nigricans. — Dr. Sequeira, a very dark specimen of Avhat
appeared to be Agrotis nigricans. Some members thought the specimen
might be A. tritici ; also a specimen of Melanippe rivata Avith a slender
band and a similar aberration of M. montanata.

Oporabia autumnata. — Mr. Prout, some Oporabia antumnata, Bork.,
bred August- September, 1900, from larvie sent from Pontresina early
in July by Dr. Chapman, Avho had found them feeding commonly on
honeysuckle, alder, &c.

Sphinx ligustri, etc. — Mr. Oldham, Sphinx ligustri from Cam¬
bridge and some extreme forms of Triphaena pronuba from Woodford.

Macroglossa stellatarum bred. — Mr. Bacot, a long series of bred
Macroglossa stellatarum shoAving slight variation.

General exhibit of Eurymus. — Many members brought up either
long or short series of Eurymus croceus and E. hyale. Mr. Clark had
some very fine forms, Messrs. Prout, Kaye, Mora, James and Roa\ C.
R. N. BurroAvs also exhibited. Mr. Mera had a magnificent aberration

19

of E. hyale in which the black scaling at the apex was extended inwards
nearly to the discoidal cell. Mr. Bacot also among his specimens had
some E. electro, from South Africa.

Discussion on British species of genus Eurymus. — The President
started the discussion. He said he supposed all members agreed that
the British species of this genus were as a rule migrants. Personally
he considered that in such sheltered parts of the country as Torquay
and the south coast of the Isle of Wight E. croceus (edusa) might
breed regularly. E. hyale always appears to be a migrant, and never
to breed on these shores. The Rev. Mr. Burrows had recently called
his attention to the colour of the sexes in E. hyale. Do all the J s
have the paler coloration and all the $ s the darker ? Mr. Prout
then referred to the previous visitation of these Eurymus species in
1892, and recollected that Mr. Battley, a former member of this Society,
had traced the first specimens as having been seen at Dover, and
later only in other parts of the country, pointing to a migration across
the Channel at that point. Mr. Burrows in referring to the colour
question of E. hyale quoted from Tutt’s British Butterflies, a passage
where that author hints at a parallel case to the $ of E. croceus in the
form helice. Subsequent examination of a number of specimens went
to confirm this view. Mr. Mera said he had found that intermediates
between E. croceus and var. helice were more frequent in Devonshire
than elsewhere, and thought perhaps the extra warmth was in some
Avay influential. Mr. Bacot mentioned that a specimen of the var.
helice in Mr. Clark’s series was exactly like a § of E. electro, and
he had some doubt as to whether the two species could satis¬
factorily be separated. Upon the discussion reverting as to
whether either of E. croceus or E. hyale bred in these Islands,
Mr. Burrows stated that he had taken E. croceus for three suc¬
cessive seasons. Mr. Pickett said he had never been to Folke¬
stone at the right time of year without meeting with this same
species. Mr. James mentioned that E. hyale occurred at Broadstairs
on September 25th, 1899. The President said that it was possible
that eggs laid by stray 5 s last year had hatched, fed up and produced
imagines in the present season.

Nov. 20th, 1900. — Mr. Wilfred Dadd, of 3, Colina Villas, Wood
Green, was elected a member of the Society.

Epirrita dilutata. — Mr. Clark exhibited a long variable series of
Epirrita dilutata from Polegate.

Apamea ophiogramma near London, etc. — Mr. Riches, Apamea ophio-
(jrarnma and A. secalis ( dulyma ) from Hornsey Rise ; the larvae of both
species being found together feeding on cotton grass. Two fine Bisulcia
ligustri were also shown.

Proutias. — Mr. Prout, the Psychids Proutia hetulina and /’.
eppinyella, with their cases, from Chingford.

Spilosoma mendica. — Mr. Bacot, Spilosoma mendica $ s, one of
which was very large and approaching the form rustica from Ireland.

Xylina semibrunnea. — Mr. Kaye, a specimen of Xylina semibrunnea
taken in his garden at Worcester Park on ivy bloom, on October 25th,
1900.

Xylena monoglypha, etc.— Dr. Sequeira, A plena monoglypha of the

20

black form, and Xotolophus antiqua, large specimens from Aberdeen¬
shire.

Aporophyla lutulenta. — Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, a fine series of
Aporophyla lutulenta showing all the phases of variation including the
form consimilis of Stephens.

Discussion on Sugaring. — A discussion on “ Sugaring” was held.
Mr. Prout in starting it said that it had never been satisfactorily
settled what were the conditions, atmospheric and the like, that
were essential to success. He remarked that Mr. Robson began
collecting data, but had not as yet made any generalisations thereon.
It appeared pretty certain that certain conditions suited certain families.
One knows of evenings for Tortrices, for Pgralidae, &c., and Mr. Prout
had himself had particular evenings when Nomophila noctuella swarmed.
Other remarks put forward by the President were, that on rare occasions
he had observed insects paired on sugar and that for some unaccount¬
able reason he had always found certain trees, even of the same kind,
were always more productive than others. Mr. Burrows said he had
never seen insects paired at sugar. He thought he had good proof
that insects came a considerable distance to visit the sugar as he had
repeatedly found that when the wind was in certain directions he always
got the same insects, such as when the scent blew over reed- beds he
got reed-frequenting species. Dr. Sequeira said he had found that
when sugar was productive light was not, and vice versa. Mr. Burrows
then asked members for their experiences with Luperina testacea. He
personally had only twice found it on sugar. Mr. Prout said he had
only once seen a 5 , but Mr. Cox mentioned that he had taken a series
off sugar. Mr. Nicholson spoke next, and in the course of his remarks
stated that Mr. Bright, of Bournemouth, had on occasions applied
sugar to oak trunks in the early morning to attract Limenitis sibylla.
Horse-chestnut was, he considered, one of the few trees that never pay
for sugaring. Asa general rule all trees were worth a trial. Autumnal
insects he thought were less particular about the atmospheric conditions,
than others, as they come on almost any night. Mr. Kaye said in
answer to this that the air was always more humid at that time of
year and the scent therefore travelled better. Dr. Chapman, in refer¬
ring to atmospheric conditions in general, said it was certain with
regard to the attractiveness of sallow bushes that a clear sky was always
accompanied by a dearth of insects.

Dec. 4th, 1900. — Annual Meeting. — Mr. Alfred Sich, of 65,
Barrowgate Road, Chiswick, was elected a member of the Society.

Cid aria immanata. — Mr. Clark exhibited a number of Cidaria
immanata from Aberdeenshire. Mr. Prout remarked about these that
although so varied they could not be mistaken for the Shetland forms.

Taleporia tubulosa (pseudobombycella) cases, etc. — Mr. Kaye,
some cases of Taleporia tubulosa taken at Oxshott on birch trunks, also
a specimen of the rare Morpho godartii from Bolivia.

Camptogramma bilineata aberrations. — Dr. Sequeira, along variable
series of Camptogramma bilineata from Devon, Kent, Aberdeenshire,
&c.

Ciieimatobia boreata. — Mr. Pickett, some living specimens of both
S and J Ciieimatobia boreata from Chislehurst.

21

Secretaries’ Report for the year 1900.

Twenty-four meetings of the Society have been held during the
past year, as has been usual for some time past. The attendance
reached high-water mark on February 20th, when the number came
up to 23 including three visitors. The lowest was touched on August
7th, when but four members signed the attendance book. The net
average attendance works out to thirteen only, which cannot he called
satisfactory, as at the last report the average attendance was fifteen,
and that in turn was lower than the preceding twelve months. An
attendance of thirteen, with a membership of 62, means only 20% of
the members coming to the meetings. It is of course a fact that the
continuance of the meetings all through the summer brings down the
average very considerably, but the attendance must be considered from
another point of view. On only two occasions did the numbers
reach 20 or over. In other words on the most popular nights the
attendance barely touched 33% of the membership. In view of these
figures, we think it right to make a strong appeal to all the members
to give stronger support to the society by coming in person to the
meetings.

The past year has witnessed two principal and very satisfactory
events. The Transactions have again been able to be printed by means of a
special fund. The number of pages also has risen from 68 last year
to 80 this year, which of itself proves that there are many members
who are doing all they can for the benefit of the Society. As has
been repeatedly said, a Society’s standing depends largely on the
Transactions it prints, and we have reason to be more than satisfied
with this volume of 80 pages. The other principal event was the
holding of a conversazione on April 21th. Previous to this function
much doubt was entertained as to whether the finances of the
Society would bear the strain, but, again, by the generosity of a
number of members the money difficulty was overcome and a very
successful soiree took place. The exhibits of lepidoptera both British
and Exotic were particularly fine, and much material relating to
coleoptera, diptera, neuroptera, hymenoptera, was also on view.
Since the last conversazione three years had elapsed. If such an
evening can be made triennial we are sure nothing but good can come
of it.

An excursion was made on .June 23rd, under the direction of
Mr. H. A. Fuller, to Barthorne Woods, near Effingham Junction
station. It proved in every way a success, and twenty members
attended. Some anomalies were discovered in the reduced fares issued
by the South-Western Railway Company, it being found that the
cost per member was actually higher if all the tickets were purchased
simultaneously for a party than if bought singly by individual members.
Members accordingly took their own tickets.

The Secretaries have to thank all those members who have in any
way contributed to the success of the Society by reading notes, papers,
starting discussions, or who have helped in any other way. The following
list of communications, papers read, subjects for discussions, &c.,
brings to our notice that whatever the obstacles, the Society is doing
good work. The discussions, as before, have been very fruitful in
eliciting the remarks of a number of members, and the papers and
shorter communications have invariably been listened to attentively.

22

1899, Dec. 5.

» ,, 19.

1900, Jan. 2.

„ 16.
Feb. 6.

yy

20.

yy

20.

Mar.

G.

y y

20.

Apr.

3.

yy

17.

May

1.

y y

15.

Nov.

6.

yy

20.

Annual Meeting, Presidential Ad¬
dress

Discussion, “ Coast Collecting.”

Pocket-box exhibition, when a large
number of interesting specimens
were shown.

Discussion, the “ Ayrotis tritici ”
group.

Paper, “ The Re-classification of
Lepidoptera ”

Paper, “ Myrmecophilous Coleop-
tera”

Communication : “A few days at
Fusio ”

Discussion, “ Larvae.”

Exhibition.

Communications : “ Micro-Lepidop-
tera of the London District.” ...

Paper, “ Phorodesma smaraydana.”

Mr. L. B. Prout,
F.E.S.

Mr. W. J. Kaye,
F.E.S.

Mr. H. Donis-
thorpe, F.E.S.
Dr. T. A. Chap¬
man, F.E.S.

Mr. D. C. Bate.
Rev. C. R. N.
Burrows.

Discussion, “Nomenclature,” intro¬
duced by . Mr. E. M. Dadd.

Discussion, “ Pupae.”

Discussion, “ The British Species of
the Genus Eurymus.”

Discussion, “ Sugaring.”

W. J. Kaye
S. J. Bell

Hon. Secs.

TREASURER’S ACCOUNT, December, 1899, to December, 1900.

Dr.

Cr.

To Balance from 1899
„ Subscriptions and En¬
trance Fees (1900)

,, Subscriptions (arrears) . .
„ „ (1901) . .

,, Donation..

£ s. d.

1 18 10£

16 7 6
1 12 6
0 5 0
110

£21 4 104

By One Year’s Rent from
31st July, 1899, to 31st
July, 1900
,, Insurance
,, Attendance
,, Postage and Stationery
,, Printing (Syllabus, Cir
culars, &c.)

„ Subscriptions to Maga
zines

,, Subscription to South
Eastern Union of Scien
tific Societies for 1900
and 1901

,, Balance in hand

£ s. d.

10 0 0
0 9 6
0 10 0
2 6 3£

14 6

2 5 6

0 10 0
3 19 1
£21 4 104

Amount of Subscriptions unpaid
,, considered good

£5 17s. Od.
£2 12s. Od.

28

To Subscriptions

LIFE MEMBERSHIP FUND.

£ s. cl.

. . 10 0 0 By advance to General Fund,

1897 .

„ advance to General Fund,
1899 .

£10 0 0

£ s. d.

5 0 0

5 0 0
£10 0 0

PUBLICATION FUND.

£ s. d.

To Donations and Subscrip¬
tions . . . . . . 20 1 0

£20 1 0

£ s. d

By Printing Transactions and
part of London Fauna

List . 19 4 0

,, Printing Balance Sheet . . 0 9 6

,, Petty Expenses .. .. 0 0 8

,, Balance in hand . . . . 0 6 10

£20 1 0

London Institution, 4th December, 1900.
C. Nicholson, Hon. Treat.

Examined and found correct.

A. Bacot ) i

-rj -r-i a [Auditors,

V. Eric Shawm

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS,

By Louis B. Prout, F.E.S.

Gentlemen, —

The completion of another year’s work in connection with our
Society reminds us that the time has arrived for one of those annual
retrospective and prospective surveys which have come to be considered
as an appropriate, if not indeed a necessary, accompaniment of such
occasions. In looking back over the past year, I feel impelled to thank
you first of all for the many tokens of your friendly regard and
sympathy which have marked its course, and especially for the latest
manifestation of these in the honour which you have now shown me
in again re-electing me to the position which you have made it so easy
and pleasant for me to occupy for the last two years. I only hope
that I shall be able to show myself worthy of your continued confidence,
but I will venture to couple with this the further hope that any success
which I may achieve will not make you hesitate to place any other
suitable member in the Chair whensoever it may appear to you desirable,
and to find for me any other office in which you consider I could serve
you to greater advantage. The aim of us all, I trust, is to make our
Society healthy and prosperous, and worthy still to hold that almost
unique position which — as I reminded you just a twelvemonth ago —
we have held for the closing decades of the century which is now on
the point of expiring.

The year 1900 has, I believe, been marked by the usual measure

24

of activity amongst naturalists, but I regret to have to confess that
many and varied claims upon my time have prevented my keeping
myself altogether an fait with the work done in the different sections
of the wide field of Natural History, and, I therefore, do not feel com¬
petent to enter upon a review of the year’s work. As regards our ever-
increasing mass of literature I observe with satisfaction that a good
deal is being attempted in the direction of coping with it and rendering
it accessible ; the best class of monographers, undismayed by the
magnitude of the task, continue to give us good bibliographical refe¬
rences, and I am glad to learn that Mr. C. Davies Sherborn, F.Z.S.,
has at last advanced far enough to be able to prepare for the press the
first part of his colossal “ Index Animalium ” which is to be to zoolo¬
gists what the “ Index Kewensis is to botanists. I have not heard
recently of the progress of the still more gigantic work which was to
be undertaken in Germany under the title “ Das Tierreich.” In the
same category of useful compilations of hitherto scattered descriptions,
&c., rather than as a final pronouncement upon matters of classifica¬
tion, one must regard Sir George Hampson’s “ Catalogue of the
Lepidoptera Phalaenae ” now publishing under the auspices of the
British Museum, and of which the second volume, dealing with the
Arctiadae, appeared early in the present year. I have been given to
understand that another extremely useful effort in the department of
compilation, or rather of indexing, has been taken in hand in connec¬
tion with the indispensable, yet somewhat inaccessible, contents of the
annual “ Zoological Record,” which are at length to be subjected to
the needful indexing. It is evident that there is great need for still
more bibliographical work, for more references and cross-references,
abstracts and summaries and even full quotations, in order that the
present generation may know something of what has been done by the
preceding ones, that the lamentable waste of labour involved in the
re-discovery of discovered facts may be prevented — or rather minimised
for we can never hope to prevent it entirely — and that the zeal and
enterprise of present-day workers may be directed to the investigation
and solution of the many and urgent problems which still remain
unsolved, or even untouched. I once received, in response to an
application for information on a genus which I was then studying, a
charming little letter from an entomologist whom I will not name, as
he has since “ gone over to the majority,” in which letter he enclosed
some doggrel about “ Compilers who read, compilers who write, com¬
pilers who spoil good paper once white,” Ac.; but I regret to say that
in spite of the gentle hint I have continued to “compile,” and I venture
to affirm before you all that I think the compiler — if he does his work
intelligently and discriminately, for we do not want Johann August
Ephiam Goeze, and Johann Friedrich Gmelin and others of their
genus to re-appear upon the scenes— the compiler, I say, has a very
useful place to fill, and I would even express the wish that more would
engage in this work, and less would occupy themselves with mediocre
“ orig.nal work which, after all, is generally not original at all.

Me shall all, I am sure, agree that the greatest entomological
production of the year has been the second volume of “ British
Lepidcptera ” by our illustrious Vice-President, Mr. J. W. Tutt. Here
we have a compilation and much more than a compilation, the work of
the past respected and used as it deserves to be, the workers of the

25

present requisitioned — shall I say “ commandeered ? as a staff of
departmental specialists to collaborate with the author, and the ground
hereby cleared for the workers of the future, in order that their efforts
may be profitably directed. Into the very difficult and debateable
question as to whether and how these advantages of thoroughness could
be retained without such an enormous expenditure of time and space,
the present is not the occasion to enter; but we shall concur in heartily
wishing the author long life and health in order that he may enrich
our literature with many volumes elucidating the relationships, the
life-histories, the distribution, and the many other matters of interest
in the study, of our indigenous lepidoptera.

Passing by other books which would have deserved mention had
time allowed, I will dwell for a moment on one or two topics suggested
by a consideration of the book which we have just had under our notice.
I have remarked that it deals with our indigenous lepidoptera. This is
not, I need hardly remind you, due to any narrow insularity on the
part of the writer, but altogether to circumstances beyond his control ;
and he has without doubt more than once felt the inconvenience of the
limitation. Indeed, he has done as much as was possible under the
circumstances to introduce us to the kindred forms of other lands.
Not so very many years ago, I might have needed to admonish, or even
reprove, a Society such as the “City of London Entomological” in
connection with this subject of insular prejudice ; but when I call to
mind the general nature of our exhibits during the last few years, I
feel that criticism is almost entirely disarmed, and I need hardly do
more than state my conviction that in this respect “ the former days
were ” not “ better than these,” but that a cosmopolitan view of our
position as naturalists is the one that is most worthy of us, and that,
though a stern necessity may prevent many of us from making
acquaintance with extra-British species in their native haunts, yet an
interest in them will greatly increase and render more intelligent and
more profitable, our interest in our native forms.

A matter of very great importance in connection with such books
as this of Mr. Tutt’s, is that there shall be ample references to the
sources of information, whether previously published or received by the
author from private sources. Mr. Bateson, in reviewing volume ii of
British Lepidoptera in the Entomologist's Record has urged the
necessity of this, and after my remarks on bibliographical work in
general, it is superfluous for me to add how thoroughly I agree with
this. Even in the few years during which I have been engaged in
bibliographical research, I have lost many precious hours in quest of
the source of some incomplete reference or allusion, and have some¬
times in the end come to the conclusion that it was merely in
manuscript. I think it will be found practicable in later volumes to
supply this deficiency without adding to the bulk of the book ; I need
not now go into details, but I may remind writers that such abbrevia¬
tions as l.c. ( loc . cit.), i.l .'{in litt.), & c., do not take much time nor
trouble even though they should need to be repeated many times.

Turning from writing to writers, I cannot refrain, as a lepi-
dopterist, from alluding to the double loss sustained by us during the
year in the deaths of Dr. Otto Staudinger and Dr. Ottmar Hofmann,
both prominent figures in the entomological world for nearly half a
century, each indeed, in his own particular department, an acknow-

26

ledged master, whose place it will not be easy to fill. It is encouraging
to see, however, how many younger men are becoming yearly
better known for their excellent work, and we need entertain no serious
anxiety as to the prospects of the science and art of entomology for the
coming century.

Perhaps you will have been thinking that I take too serious and
exalted a view of a pursuit which, after all, has been taken up by
most of us for mere recreation ; it may be well, therefore, that I should
state more explicitly the exact nature of my opinions upon what is
often spoken of as the “mere collector” question, and the justifiableness
or otherwise of the existence of such a class. Let me say then most
emphatically that I do not expect nor even desire all our entomologists
to throw themselves equally deeply into the scientific side of the study.
Having had practically no scientific training myself, and being far
from well versed in the higher walks of biology, I have much reason
to sympathise with those who dread its making itself the be-all and
end-all of our work among the insects. I am, therefore, ready to
concede to my fellow entomologists the full right to be “mere
collectors ” if they please — with one or two reservations, however,
which I feel bound to make. I take it that it should be expected of
every collector, however modest his pretensions, that he should care¬
fully authenticate every specimen he takes, by providing notes of the
locality, date, &c. Thus much he owes to his brethren, who will
thereby be enabled to use for their purposes the material he has
collected; and if he be unwilling to take even this amount of trouble,
it is his plain duty to confine himself to the collecting of pretty
pictures or rare autographs or something else equally harmless and
equally unscientific. Considering the many and important problems
which hang to a great extent upon circumstances of geographical
distribution and of phenology, it is little short of lamentable that
specimens should be preserved without a reliable “ history.” It is
noteworthy that the late Henry Walter Bates, the “ Naturalist on the
Amazons,” who commenced his career as a mere collector, took pains
to label his coleoptera from the very earliest days of his col¬
lecting ; can we suppose that he would ever have worked out his great
discovery of “mimicry” so perfectly, had he not habituated himself
to this precision of method in dealing with the material which came
to his hand ? Fortunately lepidopterists have of late awakened from
their apathy on this subject — in which I believe they were far behind
other entomologists and zoologists generally, not to mention botanists.
Even during the few years in which I have been collecting and
exchanging, I have noticed a considerable change. When I commenced,
I had constantly to ask my correspondents for data, and never dared
to assume that they would furnish them unasked, indeed, it not
infrequently happened that specimens came to me without data
after all, and 1 had to write a second time in order to obtain them.
But now all our lepidopterists of any position at all supply this
information whether I expressly ask for it or not, and it would seem
almost superfluous that I should further emphasise the subject. That
it is not absolutely superfluous, however, the following statements will
show'. A year or two ago I sent to our best English professional for
some specimens which I wanted, and when he sent them he of course
gave localities so far as he "was able ; but there was one species of

27

which he was only able to tell me that it was from one of the best
Scotch collectors, and probably taken in Scotland, and he took occasion
to remark that he could not see the need for troubling about
localities in the case of species which did not show geographical
variation. Now this sounds plausible enough, but it is really an
absolutely untenable position to take up. Who is to decide whether
a given species is subject to geographical variation ? And how shall
we ever come to a knowledge of the subject unless we label every
specimen? We are constantly making new discoveries in this
connection, and we may confidently predict that many more will yet
be made in the future. Again, the possessor of one of the largest
collections of varieties and aberrations in this country has remarked
to me that, while he appreciates the value of locality-labelling in
ordinary cases, yet he would value a rare aberration or sport just as
highly, whether he knew its exact history or not. There is a good
deal more to be said for this gentleman’s point of view than for that of
the professional just mentioned, but the same argument prevents our
conceding even to the captor of an apparently unique aberration the
right to ignore the locality and other circumstances of its capture.
It is a mere platitude to say that every effect has its corresponding
cause, and even the most casual aberrations must be capable of some
explanation, biological or pathological, or what not ; and should such
an aberration subsequently recur (a thing which has happened times
and again) it may become a matter of great importance to be able to
decide on the probabilities of there being any hereditary connection
between the two, or any local cause bringing about a similar result on
more than one occasion.

One other thing that should be demanded of the “ mere collector ”
is that he should so far sympathise with the more studious ento¬
mologist as to be ready to collect not solely the material that he wants
to “ fill his own series ” and “ exchange for his own desiderata,” but
also, where it is within his power, such material as may help on any
special line of work or research which may be in hand. I have
myself met with such unvarying kindness in this respect, from
entomologists in general and from members of this Society in
particular, that I can hardly hope anything better than that other
workers have fared equally well. Now that it is becoming pretty
generally known that I venture to pose as a specialist in the
Geometndes, and particularly the Larentiidae of Guenee, I find material
for study in this family coming in as fast as I am able to deal with it.
Depend upon it, it is only by this principle of co-operation that any
good worth mentioning will be achieved. I believe most devoutly in
usefulness — not necessarily utilitarianism — and I think that collectors
who have not the time or the taste for hard work themselves can yet
be of very great use to those who have.

But although I have thus spoken, it is still my own personal con¬
viction that the studious worker will get the greatest pleasure and
profit out of a subject like entomology or any other branch of natural
history, pregnant as such subjects are with the interest and fascination
that belong to the realms of reality and life ; and I would urge you to
try and find some special line of study within the great field, however
slight and unpretentious such special line may be. I have already
reminded you that I have endeavoured to make myself a specialist in

28

the Geometrides, and I should like to say here what I said some years
ago to the members of the “North London Natural History Society,”
that I think specialists are a necessity of the age and we cannot have
too many of them. Professors of “ Things in General ” like the
immortal Teufelsdrockh at Weissnichtwo, are all very well in their way,
but they do not, in my humble opinion, reach the highest ideal. If
we allow ourselves to flounder about among mere generalities, in the
present advanced state of the science of Natural History, we shall
indeed find ourselves in a condition of “ know-not-where,” and shall
achieve little or nothing worthy of achievement. I forget the original
source of the oft-repeated quotation which describes the ideal which we
should set before us, but it states my views so perfectly and in such a
neat epigrammatic form, that I feel constrained to re-quote it ; shall
we not aim, then, to “ know something of everything, and everything
of something ? ”

As soon as anyone becomes known as a specialist, whether in a
particular family or a particular line of research, he should not find it
necessary to make many appeals for help, rather should the help
gravitate towards him as he requires it. It may not always be easy
for a keen collector to part with some interesting “catch” for the
benefit of someone to whom it would be of more real use; but to judge
from my own personal experience, already in part alluded to, it can be
done, and I can honestly say that in my own endeavours to act upon
this principle I have found more delight than I should have found in
gloating over a rare aberration, of the meaning of which (through lack
of parallel material) I am unable to form any adequate conception. I
treasure to this day a kindly letter of appreciation which I received
from a well known entomologist to whom I had the privilege of handing
over a new aberration of a Scoyaria, which he informed me was
correlated with known aberrations of some other species of the genus.
Surely material ought, as far as possible, to be placed where it will be
of the most use, whether in the private collection of a specialist, or in
a public collection which needs such material , and I am very glad to
know that the at fust svjht unreasonable request of our Museum
authorities for types of new species which we may work out there is
gradually coming to commend itself to our judgment, and to meet with
our approbation.

One word more in relation to the desirability of supporting current
lines of research will be appropriate in an address wherein I have
attempted a few allusions to the present year’s work. Last May, Mr.
W. Bateson, F.R.S., on behalf of the Evolution Committee of the
Royal Society, published an appeal for particulars as to the past and
present condition in different districts of certain specified lepidoptera
which are well known to possess a melanic tendency, in order that
material might be brought together for an exhaustive enquiry into the
question of progressive melanism. I have several schedule forms which
I shall be only too pleased to distribute, and I shall be glad if our
Society is found co-operating in this interesting inquiry ; London
collectors have a good chance of doing so, for the list of species which
are first to be placed under observation includes several which are
known to exhibit the melanic tendency at times round London, e.y.,
Pachys betularia, Synopsia abruptana, Triaena psi, Erannis maryinaria
(llybernia proycmmana ), &c.

29

There are many other problems awaiting solution, some of them of
merely passing interest, others again likely to prove of real and even
vital importance to the well-being of the human race, such as some of
those concerning heredity ; and probably no worker in the whole range
of biology has better opportunities of attacking these problems than
the entomologist. But it is not easy to draw the line between the
unimportant and the important, and there is hardly any investigation
that is not worthy of being undertaken by him to whom its interest
appeals ; very often we find that a great discovery is made almost
accidentally, in the course of the earnest pursuit of some quite different
path of research. Some naturalists who are a good deal above the
average might be inclined to smile at the zeal with which the humbler
worker throws himself into some question of the differentiation of two
closely-related species or varieties, and might tell him that his labour
is virtually useless, seeing that from the evolutionary standpoint the
difference between “ species,” “ subspecies” and “variety” is more a
difference of terms than one of actual fact. I may be mistaken, but I
myself think that this work, properly carried out, is by no means in
vain, but that good fruit may be expected from its persistent pursuit.
My predecessor in this Chair, in his able philosophical dissertations
has done much to shake our faith in the objective existence of any such
sharply-defined segregation of individuals as we understand by our
term “ species.” Yet I believe he would not for a moment deny — and
certainly I will not for a moment deny — that the term is of the utmost
utility for conveying a general idea, and that for every one case in which
it breaks down in its precise application, there are hundreds— nay, I
might safely say there are thousands — of cases in which it represents
accurately that which we observe. Every breeder of our lepidoptera
in any considerable numbers will certainly bear me out in this asser¬
tion. But while we know that a “ species ” has, in this vast majority
of cases, such well-marked constitution and delimitation, it is neverthe¬
less true that there are few problems which require more patience and
care for their investigation than that of the specific right of two or
more closely-allied species, and it may, therefore, be claimed that
investigation of this kind is both a good training in itself and also a
very likely avenue to the discovery of other matters of still greater
value.

There are few things more calculated to anger me than the whole¬
sale telescoping of species to which some writers are so prone — often
upon a mere “bowing acquaintance” based upon the inspection of a
few dried specimens in a Museum. A recent writer, for instance,
sinks Scoparia basistriyalis as a synonym of S. ambigualis — a synonym,
mark you, not even a variety worthy of being separately diagnosed —
and does this presumably because he cannot find any difference in the
neuration of the imago. As it is a little larger and more strongly-built
he opines that it is produced by moisture, and it matters not that one
of our best micro-lepidopterists, who has had many years’ experience
of S. basistriyalis, and has from careful observation become convinced
of its distinctness — it matters not that this gentleman tells our author
that the wood where he takes it is the driest in Kent, the name basistri¬
yalis has to sink, sharing the fate of many another name between the
same two covers. Not long ago I was talking to a very able botanist
of my acquaintance, and our conversation turned upon the recent

80

multiplication of species, or subspecies, in botany. Said he, “ I suppose
as our research proceeds and our knowledge increases this tendency is
sure to manifest itself, and though it is perhaps possible to overdo it,
yet it cannot be denied that it is in the main correct and beneficial ;
doubtless you have observed the same tendency in entomology?” I
had to confess with shame that a great many entomologists were doing
just the reverse, and seemed to delight in obscuring the careful work
of their predecessors by “ lumping ” everything which they possibly
could. I do not care whether we prefer to use the name species, sub¬
species, race, variety or any other name to designate the difference of
which we are conscious; but if there is an appreciable difference, then,
in the name of scientific accuracy, do let us recognise that by some
distinctive title which enables us to record the observed habits, &c.,
under their right heading.

I do not at all condemn theorising, or the formation of definite
opinions as to the distinctness or otherwise of allied forms. In a
never-to-be-forgotten address delivered at the meeting of the Entomo¬
logical Society on January 20th, 1897 (Proc. Ent. Sue., 1896, pp. lxii),
Professor Meldola argued in favour of the holding of an hypothesis as
a stimulus to definite research, and I most cordially concur in his view ;
but do not let us make the mistake of regarding such hypothesis as a
proven fact, or of trying to force it down the throats of our fellow-
workers. Again let me plead for an open mind in all branches of
research, and for a provisional acceptance of all differentiations which
are at all capable of comprehension and expression ; in this way alone
shall we clear the ground for the work of the generation that is to
come.

Had time permitted, I should have referred again to some of the
still more difficult and indefinite questions of (jeneric separation. It
must suffice to say that I am coming to agree more and more with an
opinion expressed here some months ago by my good friend Dr. T. A.
Chapman, that our binomial system of nomenclature is by no means
so perfect as it has been held to be, and that there is cause for regret
that it is impossible to establish a mononymic usage throughout an
order, i.e., so as to be able to write Lepidnpteron machaon, Lepidopteron
caia, and so on throughout, thus avoiding all the worries of generic
nomenclature. If we are going to take the view which is advocated by
some, that “ genus ” is absolutely the next grade above “ species,” we
shall soon arrive at that state in which nearly every species requires a
separate generic appellation ; for it is seldom indeed that any large
assemblage of species has branched off simultaneously from the common
stock, and that, therefore, its constituents show amongst themselves no
closer relationships in one direction than in another.

In conclusion let us turn our attention more particularly to the
concerns of our own Society. I think we may congratulate ourselves
that our year has been on the whole a satisfactory one, though we
could wish for a larger attendance, and a larger increase of our balance
in hand ; as you will have observed from the Treasurer’s statement,
this has been about doubled — a state of things infinitely better than
a decrease — but when we recollect at how low a figure it stood at the
end of 1899, we realise that there is not even now very much to be
proud of, especially as I believe there are several books awaiting
binding, and the need of a new bookcase is making itself urgently felt ;

81

at any rate I fear it will be some time before tbe Council is able to
vote any grant from tbe general fund, to tbe assistance of tbe special
publication fund. Are our members doing all that they possibly can
to make known the aims and claims of the Society amongst their
naturalist friends ? We have recently made some acquisitions to our
membership whereof we are proud, and we are still able to rejoice in
the presence amongst us of several old and valued friends ; but I have
to remind you, with profound regret, that our ranks have been thinned
by death, two of our very promising members having been removed
from us during the year ; I allude to Mr. W. G. Pearce and Mr. E.
Heasler — both of them men whom we felt that we could ill afford to
lose.

I have to thank you for the support which you have given me in
carrying out my intentions indicated at our last Annual Meeting as to
the general conduct of the Society ; I think we may flatter ourselves
that there is some improvement in punctuality and attention, but we
must not relax our vigilance, or think that we have attained perfection
in these respects. Our discussions have been on the whole Avell taken
up, but perhaps they were hardly so fruitful as definite papers would
have been, and I am glad to find that you have shown yourselves
willing to co-operate with our Secretaries in their arrangements for a
series of papers during the present winter session. Many and
interesting have been our exhibits, and the night of Karymm ( Culias )
may be mentioned as a special success. It has been suggested to me
by more than one of our members that we might profitably have a
little more system and pre-arrangement with regard to our exhibits,
not of course to the exclusion of others, hut as a nucleus, and to
ensure opportunities for comparison of material in critical species. I
am very ready to give this plan a trial, as it promises to stimulate
interest in our meetings and to yield good results. I shall therefore
as often as possible announce some group of allied species in which
exhibits are invited for the following meeting ; and with this end in
view I shall welcome suggestions as regards species suitable for this
purpose, or those in which any of our members are particularly anxious
to see and study accumulated material. I hope our coleopterists will
not leave this branch of our work entirely in the hands of the
lepidopterists, but will propose some groups which they think they
could appropriately treat in the same way.

Any other suggestion which members may have to offer on this or
any other branch of our work will, I can asssureyou, be most carefully
considered by myself or by the Council ; let us avoid anything like
stagnation, and whilst conserving what is essential to the well-being
of the Society, let us be radical in uprooting the sources of failure and
the hindrances to our progress, so that the new century may see the
“ City of London Entomological and Natural History ” moving
forward with new hopes and new strength, to new achievements in the
branches of work to which it has for so many years devoted its
energies.

82

PAPERS READ BEFORE THE SOCIETY.

- ==@333a©3«a=- -

SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS IN BRITISH COLEOPTERA.

(Read May 2nd, 1S99, by H. HEASLER).

In bringing the subject of secondary sexual characters before the
Society, it is more particularly with the idea of drawing the attention
of the members to the importance of these characters in throwing
light on the history and development of insect genera, than the recital
of a host of these characters, which are either well known or which
convey no information to anyone who is not actually a coleopterist.
For this purpose I propose omitting those characters whose utility is
obvious, such as the dilated tarsi in our Geodephaga, the suckers on
the anterior tarsi of Dytiscus, the antennal development in the cock¬
chafer, &c., and shall deal more with those obscure characters which
are so difficult to understand. This side of the question has always
had for me a particular fascination, and it is only by the actual study
of these structures, and their connections and points of resemblance in
closely allied species, that one is able to trace something of the lines
along which the numberless species of insects have been, or are being,
developed by natural laws. The subject then becomes surrounded
Avith an interest which the bare compilation of facts could never have
given to it, and when facts have been compiled without some theory
or working basis to go upon, it is generally found that they are useless
for the purpose of any theory that may be subsequently developed,
as the facts have not been got together in a way that the theory
necessitates.

It may be in the memory of some of the members that when I
read a paper on the subject of beetle coloration, I endeavoured to show
by studying the coloration of certain groups that it was possible to see
in some measure the past history of the family by this means alone,
and it is with a similar object in view, namely, that of showing how
the secondary sexual characters of insects assist us in forming some
knowledge of the history of the families and genera displaying them,
that I intend to treat the subject of secondary sexual characters.
With this object in view I want to draw your attention especially to
the family of the Dytiscidae or carnivorous water-beetles. I have read
somewhere, I forget now where, that the reason given by someone of
the fact that the females of so many of our water-beetles were rough
where the males were shiny was for the purpose of assisting the male
during copulation by giving a better surface to which to cling. This
explanation seemed to me to be particularly ill-adapted to the facts of
the case, since in the genus Dytiscus, where the roughness reaches the
maximum, the male insect has very elaborate and well developed
suckers on the anterior tarsi, which as everyone knows are con¬
trivances suited only to a smooth surface, and the rule is the smoother

88

the surface the better they hold. What then is the reason that so
many of our water-beetles have the upper surface dull and rougher in
the females ? It might seem to some that a dull rough surface was
the original form of the various species, and on the face of it there
certainly seems a great probability that such is the case, the family
originally springing from some land form which gradually became
more and more aquatic in its habits, and by the weeding-out process
of natural selection the smoother specimens Avere preserved and the
rougher ones destroyed. It is manifestly an advantage for an aquatic
species to be smooth on account of the less resistance it gives to the Avater
Avhile swimming, Avhich is an item of considerable importance Avhere
the habits of the species are carnivorous. This solution at one time
seemed so obvious to me that I had no doubt it really Avas the
correct one, in fact, there can be no doubt that the family, in
common Avith the carnivorous ground beetles Avith Avhich they are
classed under the heading Adephaga, came originally from a striated
species, as all the land forms are striated and the aquatic species in
most cases shoAV traces of striation. We may assume that the aquatic
species have become smoother and smoother, $ s as usual taking the
lead, and the fact that in most cases the females are dimorphic some
being shiny like the males and some being dull, looks as if the females
Avere gradually folloAving the lead of the males. So far the facts seem
obvious, and one might confidently predict that a time would come in
the near future Avhen the Avhole of the Dytiscidae, both males and
females Avould be smooth, and sexual dimorphism in this family a
thing of the past. But here comes the difficulty of settling the
question in this Avay. If the smooth form be the highest development
of the species, how is it that in tAvo of the highest genera of this
family the females have made the least progress toAvards the highest
form, Avhereas in some of the lower forms the females are as shiny as
the males, nor do they even occasionally throw a dull form AA'hich
might be classed as a case of reA'ersion, thus showing that the lower
forms have advanced further in this direction than the higher forms.
This is a well nigh insuperable objection of itself, since one does not
go to the highest forms of a family to find vestigial characters better
developed than in the lower forms of the same family. I think this
point will be clear to everyone, at all events I am sure no lepidopterist
Avould try to proATe the connection between trichoptera and lepidoptera
by trying to find connecting links between the tAA’o orders among the
haAvk moths or Bombycids. But another objection even more difficult
to get over lies in the fact that the sulci in Uytiscus are altogether
different from the strife of the ground-beetles, and this should certainly
not be the case if both Avere derived from a common ancestor. Having
noAV cleared the ground by showing that the females are not dull
because of the assistance it gives at pairing-time, and also that the
dull and rough surface is not a A^estigial character, it remains,
therefore, that the real reason is that the character is of importance
to the species, and has been recently developed. This is no doubt,
I think, brought about by the concealment of the species being
advanced by the breaking up the large smooth surface into a number of
dark ridges and light furroAvs ; this kind of concealment being a AA^ell
known and very effective one, and in any case a rougher surface, even
in Avater, is less conspicuous than a shiny one when it is amongst
weeds and aquatic vegetation.

34

There is a very striking corroboration to this view of the question
which cannot fail to be of interest, and it is this. If the furrows are
the result of the female requiring special concealment, then they have
no doubt been produced entirely by natural selection, and the question
of sexual selection has had nothing to do with the matter at all, or at
least, we may argue so, since it is not considered scientific to give two
causes for a given result when one is sufficient to cover the facts, and
it has already been shown how difficult it is to account for the
structure by sexual selection. But if it becomes an imperative necessity
at any time during the history of a genus or species to have a change
of structure brought about by natural selection to suit its environments
or habits, then the sexual characters must if necessary alter, to suit
the amount of change demanded by natural selection. I wish to make
this point perfectly clear, as it leads up to one of those interesting cases
where a sexual difference in a certain structure would never have been
noticed had not the theory demonstrated that it might possibly occur.
My point is this, natural selection is a far more important factor in
the life-history of a species or genus than sexual selection, and
consequently when an alteration by natural selection becomes
necessary, sexual selection even if opposed to it would at most only
retard the alteration demanded by natural selection, and it conse¬
quently follows that if natural selection be all powerful in the matter,
then sexual selection must accomodate itself where necessary to the
structural alterations brought about by natural selection. Here then
we will take up Dytiscus once more. We will suppose that natural
selection has brought about the furrows on the elytra of the female
to give it better concealment, and by the ordinary laws of nature if
this rendered copulation more difficult, then the male must develop
some new structure or improve some existing one in order to get over
the difficulty. So far the theory, and it remains to be seen if the facts
are in accordance with it and whether we can find the structure which
the theory suggests as probable. With this in view, I took all my
specimens of Dytiscus out of the cabinet, both males and females, and
I found that at the base of the anterior and intermediate femora in
both sexes, was a small stiff pencil of bristles which, in the normal
position of the legs while swimming, would point backwards but when
the legs were grasping anything beneath the insect, the femora being
twined round with the coxa towards the front of the insect, these
bristles would point downwards and would therefore assist the insect
in getting a better hold, if there were any structure in the object clung
to, into which these bristles would fit.

It had been suggested to me that the suckers on the anterior tarsi
of the male were placed on the elytra of the female during copulation,
which I had very much doubted, as the suckers being adapted for a smooth
surface I had no doubt were placed somewhere on the thorax, and
arguing on the analogy in the case of Hydrophilus pice us in which the
onychium is dilated in such a way that the claw must catch over the
lateral edge of the thorax, and also in the allied species Hydrous
caraboides where the tarsal claw in the male is exactly the shape to fit
the edge of the thorax, it seemed pretty clear that the tarsal claw in
Dytiscus (and other members of the family) caught the edge of thorax,
and the disc with the suckers was pressed down on the upper surface. I
mentioned the matter to Mr. Donisthorpc, who very kindly obtained

85

some specimens of D. marginal is and watched them till two paired,
and found that the beetle put one of the anterior legs over the edge
of the thorax and pressed the disc on the under side, while the other
disc was placed on the upper surface, he then watched another pair,
which did practically the same thing, except that the opposite leg in
this case was pressed to the underside of the thorax, while the leg
which, in the other case was on the underside, was in this case on
top ; this can hardly be the regular method of pairing, but whether
or no, it was perfectly clear from the position that the bristles on the
anterior and intermediate femora of the male would fit into the
sulci of the female elytra, and by careful comparison I found
that the bristles on the femora of the males are better developed
than in the females, so we see that not only do the ordinary facts fit
in with the idea that the sulci of the female are a new and necessary
development to the species, but we also find out the new fact that the
male is also developing a character to suit the altered condition, and
which at present is too slight to have been noticed at all had not the
theory suggested the search for it.

We are now, I think, in a position to take this not as a possible
theory, but as a probable fact, and Ave can see from this point some¬
thing of the development of this character in the family, and from that
something of the past history of the family of genera.

We have six species of Dytiscus occurring in Britain and four of
these species have two forms of the female, one shiny and smooth
like the male and one with sulcate elytra ; of these four Canon FoAvler
in his manual of British Coleoptera only refers to one species, namely,
D. circumcinctus, showing any intermediate form betAveen the sulcate
and the shiny form, and Ave have then the three gradations :

D. circumcinctus with sulcate, shiny and intermediate forms.

D. marginalis

D. lapponicus
D. circumflexus
D. punctulatus
D. dimidiatus

Avith sulcate and shiny, but no intermediate forms.

| Avith sulcate form only.

As the sulcate form has been shoAvn to be the highest development,
and taking the British specimens by themselves (as I have not the
time or material to discuss the matter as it should be with the Avhole
genera, including exotics), Avhat we learn is that probably D. circum¬
cinctus was the species nearest allied to the ancestor which, after the
sulci were developed, was the progenitor of the genus, and the other
five species came from the same stock at a later period, but of the fiA-e
only tAvo have so far perfected themselves on this point, as neATer to
revert to the ancestral form, Avhereas the other three still occasionally
revert to the smooth form, and all this tells us that the formation of
the various species has been a rapid and recent one, since so many
revert, and it is also clear that the splitting up of the species was
before the character Avas firmly fixed, and consequently the species
themselves were recently developed. This view is corroborated by the
bristles on the femora of the male not being very markedly more
developed than in the females.

By this means a light is throAvn on the posterior coxal de\*elopment
in the genus. The pointed coxal processes I was inclined to think
the more highly developed than the blunt ones, but since they

are

36

pointed in D. circumcinctus, which we have just considered our oldest
British form, this would appear not so. The posterior coxal processes act
the very important function of keeping the swimming legs in a line
with the centre of the body, so as to get the full advantage of each
stroke, and the shape is no doubt dependent upon the build of the
insect, and that the blunt ones are the more powerful, and where more
power became necessary natural selection effected the necessary
change.

Having made clear the true meaning of the dull upper surface of
the females, from the genus Dytiscus we can readily understand the
other genera of the family, and instead of predicting that the dull
form will disappear, we can now confidently predict that the shiny
form of the female is the disappearing one ; and the fact that in some
species the females are always dull, in others the majority are dull,
in some only a few dull, in others again none are dull, becomes
perfectly clear, and the whole process instead of being a confused mass
of facts without a beginning or end is now seen to be the whole process
of natural selection, being worked out in a perfectly clear and intelligible
manner. I must not forget that in one or two instances, and that
also where the male is less adapted for rapid movement (I refer more
particularly to H. 12 -pustulatas and H. depressus ), the male is also dull
like the female. Again in Hydroporus dorsalis, in some of the females the
elytra have a red spot at the shoulder, which must also be looked upon
as a higher development, seeing that it only occurs in the dull females.

There is one other point in connection with the roughness of the
surface in the females of our water-beetles, and it is that, although
the same result is obtained, i.e., that of making the insect duller, the
method employed is different (as in Dytiscus it is by sulci, in Hydro¬
porus by alutaceous punctuation, &c.) which is strongly in favour of its
being a developing character, because were it a vestigial one, derived
from a common ancestor, it would almost certainly have been built up
the same way in both genera.

This point opens up another exceedingly interesting side of the
question, which can be readily studied in the secondary sexual
characters of coleoptera, and that is the various means by which
nature, tied down by the little-known laws of heredity, struggles to
obtain by various means the same end. If one only knew the part
played by heredity in governing and checking the adaptations brought
about by natural selection, what a flood of light it would throw on
these obscure structures which are so puzzling. Take almost any
genus of beetles you like, and you find the secondary sexual characters
run along certain definite lines, and in a way that cannot fail to be
noticed ; in fact, one might almost tabulate some of the genera by
these secondary sexual characters. If one takes the genus Pterostickus
as a case in point, we find that all those displaying secondary sexual
characters have them on the last ventral abdominal segment ; in one
species it is a depression, in two or three it is a raised tubercle, or
ridge, but in all cases there is a close connection between them. In
the genus Amara, again, a good number display secondary sexual
characters, and here again wo see the characters exhibited are the
clothing of the inner margin of the intermediate or posterior tibiie. In
the genus llybius the characters in the males of different species are very
closely allied indeed, and we find it a gonoral rule that the closer the

87

insects are allied the closer resemblance there is in the secondary
sexual characters. All this seems at first sight to point to hereditary
descent from a common ancestor, seeing that the characters have
apparently no use, and that the less the species have diverged the nearer
the secondary sexual characters are to each other ; and yet I am by no
means assured that this is the true explanation, and I am always loth
to put anything down to this cause when another solution is possible,
and there are many difficulties in the way of solving the question by
assuming that they are relics of once useful structures. There is one
point here that I wish to emphasise, and that is, that the common
practice of classing all these kind of characters as being rudimentary
remnants of once useful structures is neither a scientific nor satis¬
factory way of settling the matter, as it simply but effectively puts the
closure on the whole question at once, and in a way that admits of very
little chance of discussion at any future time. I do not, of course, say
there are no vestigial or rudimentary characters, because there are no
doubt plenty of them, but I certainly think it should be the last resort
of enquiry and not the first, as is so often the case. It is such an
easy way of settling everything that is not of obvious use, but, on the
other hand, it gives an outsider the idea that evolution has come to a
stop, and that everything we see are degenerated species, which show
us nothing but relics of structures whose usefulness came to an end
some time back. The fact that the struggle is greater than ever, and that
nature is producing new structures and new combinations continually,
must, I think, be patent to everyone, and if we lay ourselves open to
misunderstand all these structures as soon as they come under our
notice, what chance have we of understanding the laws which govern
their production. When one sees the effects of the struggle for exist¬
ence in the species which have so far modified their habits as to use
our civilisation as a means of getting an easier livelihood — Anobium
paniceum is a case in point, to which nothing in the way of dried food
comes amiss, Dermestes lardanus is another, Attagenus pellio, &c., and
there are plenty of examples in lepidoptera and other orders as well
where insects feed on artificial diet in houses and warehouses — I look
on this as one of the most convincing of all ocular demonstrations of
the struggle going on around us, which we can prove so logically and
yet see so little of its actual reality.

I will point out one of the difficulties that present themselves to
the mind in connection with the subject. The genus Pterostichus is a
group of closely allied beetles, and in this group there are several
coming close together, which have in the $ s small but distinct
secondary sexual characters on the last visible ventral segment of the
abdomen. In P. niger it takes the form of a small longitudinal ridge,
in P. anthracinus it is a minute tubercle, in P. minor it is a fine
longitudinal raised line, in P. madidus it is a transverse ridge, and in
P. aethiops it is an obtuse tooth. It will be clear to anyone that all
these characters are closely allied, and they are mostly small, obscure,
and of no apparent use to the possessor. At all events it is difficult to
assign the use that a longitudinal ridge has to an insect, when in a
closely allied species it is a transverse ridge, and in a third species it is
neither transverse nor longitudinal but only a tubercle, while in another
species it is not raised at all but is a depression, and our easy way out
of the difficulty is to simply say they are the relics of a character which

88

at one time was useful to the progenitor of the several species display¬
ing these characters, and which has gradually become obsolete from
disuse. This, of course, puts the closure on the whole question at
once, and if correct all well and good, but if not we are settling the
matter in a way that is likely to stop all further investigation.

There is another point which renders this explanation of these
characters in Pterostichus a particularly difficult one, and that is that in
the genus under consideration there is one species, Pterostichus niger,
which shows the same character in the $ as in the S • That the
character has in this case originated in the S , and is a genuine
secondary sexual character, there can, I think, be no doubt, as in the
other species of the genus which have similar characters in the S
there is no sign of a corresponding structure in the $ . If then these
are vestigial characters how is it that P. niger has them not only well
marked in the S but in the $ as well, and shows no sign of losing
them. I admit that there are of course great difficulties in the way of
classing them as useful, and consequently developing, structures, but it
is better to take this side of the case, which will prompt closer investi¬
gation, than to refer them to the limbo of ancestral characters on the
decline.

What we really want to know in these matters are the laws which
govern heredity, and until we have some broad generalisation on
which to base our arguments we cannot but wander in the dark. That
there are simple laws which would cover our present knowledge of
facts I have no doubt whatever, but what those laws are, and how long
we shall have to wait for an exponent of them, time only will show.
There are many facts which show how close and important a part
heredity plays in these obscure secondary characters. No matter
what genus of beetles we take up, if they display secondary characters,
then we find that within the limits of the genus the characters run on
similar lines, and this holds good in nearly all cases, and to such an
extent that it becomes a most obvious truth to anyone studying the
subject. It is doubtless this fact which has caused the bulk of these
structures to be considered relics of some characters displayed in the
common ancestor of the genus. To my mind this question opens up
an interesting field of study as to how far natural selection can effect
its ends by utilising small variations from the type. I know it is
generally argued, and generally admitted, that variations can occur in
all directions, and that it is by this means the innumerable adaptations
in nature are effected through natural selection ; but on the other
hand we do not find the members of a genus diverging indiscriminately
in all directions, but, as a rule, we find them varying in one general
direction, or along certain lines, no matter whether we take secondary
sexual characters or others, and it seems superficially as if natural
selection did not have it all its own way, but that the hereditary
character, history or tendencies, were so firmly ingrained into a genus,
that natural selection was powerless to utilise variations except in the
direction which was governed by the hereditary tendencies of the
genus in question. Once more reverting to the secondary characters
in the genus Pterostichus, I have tried to show the difficulties and
objections of referring these to vestigial characters, and it seems
equally obvious that sexual selection can have nothing to do with the
matter. If then they are developing characters they are due to natural

89

selection, which, in our present state of knowledge, seems equally
difficult to understand, and failing this, we must suppose they are due
to certain laws of heredity of which we are at present ignorant, owing
to our not knowing what the fundamental laAvs governing heredity
really are, and it is this last solution I am inclined to favour, first,
because there is a fair probability of its leading to something by
which our knowledge will be increased, and secondly because if these
characters are vestigial it seems difficult to understand how a transverse
ridge, a longitudinal ridge, a tubercle, and a depression, can in various
species be relics of the same ancestral character. On the other hand
it is easy to understand how different characters might arise in
different species, which need not necessarily be variations of one
character, but which at the same time are bound by the laws of
heredity to bear a strong similarity, and consequently the closer the
relationship of species the closer we should expect to find the secondary
characters. As a good example I think the characters shown by the
genus llybius in the Dytiscidae clearly indicate this side of the question.
The $ characters all run as far as I know on one definite line, and
that is the last ventral segment of the abdomen is keeled and
wrinkled in a very peculiar way. In the 2 s the centre of this segment
is compressed in the middle, and the appearance in both sexes is that
there is a superfluous amount of chitin, or that the segment grows too
large for the requirement of the species. In the male the difficulty is
got over by forming a keel and wrinkles, and in the ? by bulging
the segment up in the centre. Thus on the one hand the characters
are so closely allied in the different species as to be almost identical
to each other, this agreeing with the close similarity between the
species, but on the other hand the very artificial appearance of the
segment is opposed to its being a vestigial character.

In fact it seems a general law, that the closer the relationship
between members of the same genus, the closer are their secondary
sexual characters related, but directly we try to tabulate the different
families on these characters we are at fault, and this is I think
because these characters are developing divergent peculiarities, rather
than vestigial convergent ones. Another of the interesting points
connected with secondary sexual characters, is in reference to those
characters which suddenly crop up at wide intervals in distant families.
Take for instance some species of the genus Amara ; we find in some the
posterior tibias clothed with pubescence on the inner side in the $ ,
and we have no other genus of British ground-beetles showing this
character, and it is not till we reach the end of the Avater-beetles, that
we find it in Hydraena gracilis. Again there is a solitary species of
ground beetle Sphodrus leucoptthalmus, which in the male has large
hind trochanters, and we must look among the British Staphylinidae
before we find a similar structure in Homaliumpygmaea.

Stenus jitno with its pubescent metasternum has the same characters
as Scaphidium 4^-macalatmn, a clubhorn in this respect.

If these are instances of similar characters arising de novo in each
instance, it is a remarkable circumstance well worth noticing, but if it
is due to any hereditary connection, then the persistence of some of
these structures is simply amazing, and when connecting links are
found between ground beetles, water beetles, “ staphs,” and clubhorns,
the question is when does heredity cease, and what is the cause of

40

its astonishing persistence in these characters, which we class as
vestigial.

In conclusion I would ask our members to bear the question of
heredity more earnestly in mind in connection with our favourite
hobby, and I think if all of us utilised all the information that we
come across in our entomological studies, we should see more of the
part played by this important factor in the natural world, and be better
able to understand some of the results which we see around us.

THE RE-CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEPIDOPTERA.

(Read Feb. 6th, 1900, by W. J. KAYE, F.E.S.)

I am afraid I am not on untrodden ground in the subject that I
have chosen for this paper. Messrs. Tutt, Chapman, Meyrick, and
others, have all given us very valuable papers on the subject but in
none of them I think is the subject treated from the families, genera,
and species point of view simultaneously. In using the term re¬
classification perhaps some ambiguity may arise as to the probable
drift of what I have to say. Ever since the days of Linne, who
started the scheme, the lepidoptera have been almost in a constant
state of re-classification. At some periods the original work has been
more prolific than at others. But it is highly probable that a year has
never passed in which some re-arrangement in the position of families,
genera, and species has not taken place. This as we shall see repre¬
sents progress, and however difficult and increasingly difficult it will
be to keep pace with the times as fresh work and in different directions
takes place, we must take it as a maxim that the more stereotyped we
make our classification the less knowledge do we acquire. It is of
course only during the past few years that the greatest revolutions have
taken place, and our eyes opened to the almost childish arrangement
that has existed in the past, of the position and nature of families and
genera. But it is not my intention to entertain or amuse you with
our forefathers’ ideas of classification, but to give you an epitome of
the present day results with some comments on their validity.

The very first piece of classification is our defining of two large
divisions, the butterflies and moths. These have been scientifically
named the Rhopalocera and Heterocera, but the names are not very
fortunate as we find we have insects with clubbed antennae which do
not fulfil the general conditions that hold for the butterflies or Rhopa¬
locera. We, however, do not meet with the other extreme, as butter¬
flies are unknown that do not have some sort of a thickening at the
termination of the antennae. It might be supposed that, as the rule of
clubbed antennas does not hold everywhere for making the subdivision,
failing the life-history it would be impossible from the imagines
to form a correct conclusion. But it has been discovered that in the
connecting group with the moths, the huschemonidae and Castniadae,

41

the frenulum is present. We can thus make a division, just
before those groups that have not yet lost the frenulum. We are in
this way able to make an artificial line between butterflies and moths,
and as a matter of convenience it is justifiable. All the species that
fall under the head of Rhopalocera, form a very homogeneous group,
but at the same time there is no great gap between this group and
Heterocera. There is no reason if we make one large subdivision, why
we should not form other large subdivisions. We might for instance
invent a name that includes Arctiidae, Notodontidae, Lymantridae ,
Hypsidae and be equally justified. The bulk of our attention, however,
has been in the past few years to get much smaller subdivisions in
order, and indeed it is essential that we must know the family relation¬
ship before we can group families under still more comprehensive
headings.

It is to the nature of families and their relation one to another
that a large part of the work has been directed. What are the
conditions for a family ? Asked point blank in this way, probably
a dozen individuals would each have a different answer varying with
their idea of the value of different structures. As in the case of a species
it is often a matter of opinion, so it is too frequently with families.
There cannot, however, be any duplicate methods of grouping in
nature, and for so-called utility, we should avoid any method which
is not strictly with the laws of the universe. But I think that families
have their being pretty generally in this wise. Species that have any
one or more structural characters essentially the same in ovum, larva,
pupa and imago, belong to a family. At the present time there are
some workers who hold that the characters of the perfect insect have
preponderating value over those of the other stages of the insect’s
existence, and we hear of such and such insects being relegated to the Geo-
metridae because the neuration of the wings is of Geometriform arrange¬
ment, or again, that an insect is a Noctuid, because of its having neura¬
tion that holds for that family. This shows undoubtedly that if the two
arrangements clash, there is something radically wrong with ourwork. It
is inconceivable and absurd that an insect can belong to different families
at different periods of its existence. The knowledge of the life-histories
of thousands of exotic species will prove whether the work of Hampson
and others, who cling so persistently to neuration, is on a sound basis.
If it be finally proved that the system of grouping by neuration
is valid, we have one of the most useful discoveries in the whole annals
of entomology. In the second place the utility of such a system is
immense. As already stated, there are thousands of exotics and even
many others besides, of which nothing is known save the perfect
insect. Of the value of neuration as a set off to other imaginal
characters, we rely on its immutability by external circumstances and
surroundings.

The antenna;, if our interpretation of their use be approximately
correct, would not lend themselves for such a use. We suppose for
instance that all the wingless females or semi wingless females once
had better developed wings, and that, through disuse, they have
gradually become atrophied, and in some instances have actually
been lost altogether. As a consequence of this, I should be in¬
clined to consider that the antennae of the S s (if their use as
scent organs is accepted) have undergone specialisation, be it in size,

42

number of pectinations or any other direction. The 5 moth that sits
on the tree trunk, one is justified in supposing, is not so easily brought
to the notice of the male as one that can fly, and hence the antennae
are brought into the question. Other characters of the imago might
be cited in the same way. The labial palpus, for instance, is no doubt
a plastic structure depending on the value or use, in very many cases,
that an insect makes of its proboscis. It is quite possible to
imagine that an insect, isolated from its habitat of ages where certain
plants grew, might be set down in a place where different plants grew —
plants different in form, which would call for a greater or less length of
proboscis. In those cases where the palpi are used to protect the
proboscis, a large palpus would be necessary to encase a large
proboscis. Protection cannot, however, be the sole use in such
instances as in the Libytheinae, but it doubtless plays its part, and a
large part. But although we can arrive at some conclusion for the
non-acceptance of the above organs for family distinction, we cannot
use others because they do not offer, or seem to offer, any sort of rule.
Such are the spines on the legs and the rows of hairs round the eyes.
The latter character, made use of by Meyrick in his Handbook of
British Lepidoptera, shows one at what grave errors we can arrive
by studying one side of the question only. If we can discover an
imaginal character that will coincide with our idea of classification by
the embryological stages, so much the better, and it is earnestly to be
hoped that whatever the faults to be found with neuration to start
with, we shall soon be able to understand and use the nervures for the
location of species into families at least. To go beyond this and to
use neuration for the definition of genera, is a total defeat of the great
claim for it, namely, its immutability by external forces. As I shall
later attempt to show, the characters of genera should be much more
easily affected by external forces than those of families, and the
greater the subdivision one makes the more so is this true ; specific
characters being more mutable than generic ones.

1 cannot leave the subject of neuration without calling attention
to some of its values if even in the present imperfect state of our
knowledge concerning it. Many, the vast majority of our Noctnidae,
for instance, have now been bred, and in every case the neuration of
the perfect insect lias similar, often identical, neuration. With such
constancy as this, we are pretty safe in assuming that nearly every
insect with noctuid neuration is a Noctuid. In the key to the families
set forth by Hampson to vol. i of his Lepidoptera Phalaenae, other
imaginal characters are brought in when neuration fails to separate
groups, and we have the frenulum, the palpi, and the antenme all
playing a minor share in conjunction with the neuration as the base.
Thus every moth having in hindwing vein 10 absent and with 8
removed from 7, 8 anastomosing near base only, vein 5 nearer 4 than G
in forewing, and with a frenulum, and with antenme with shaft not
dilated ; must be a Noctuid. In point of fact to the working
entomologist who knows the appearance of a Noctuid, the rein 8 remote
from 7 and also 8 anastomosiny near base only , would not be attended
to because the only family imaginally with which one would be likely
to confuse with Noctnidae, would be the Geometridae , which also has
the above conditions but which is immediately separated by its not
having the frenulum. A very remarkablo instance of the value of

43

neuration came under my notice the other day for the first time. It
was a Cocytia which has been proved to belong to the Exotic family
Hypsidae. The external appearance of the moth is strongly in
favour of the Sphmgidae, but the positions of vein 5 of the forewing
and vein 8 of hindwing clearly show that the insect cannot belong to
that group on a neuration base. Neuration here has been proved to
be correct, by the discovery of the larva, which is very like a Lymantriid
larva and which establishes the position assigned to it. Although this is
a remarkable instance there might be cited numbers of others less
striking, and they suggest very strongly that we are on a sound basis.
As has already been set forth by Tutt, families cannot be put as linear
descendants one of another, and, in fact, Chapman’s work with the ova
is proof positive of the impossibility of such an idea. Once this is
clearly understood there is no doubt that many of the difficulties of
neuration, difficulties brought about by attempting a direct lineal
arrangement, will disappear. In the seven years that have elapsed
since Meyrick first read his paper before the Entomological Society of
London, our views have been immensely moderated, and many now
obvious errors have been rectified. In the Entomologist' s Record for
1892 doubtless many of you will recall the storm aroused by Meyrick ’s
paper on the neuration. Tutt was particularly severe upon it, but must
be credited with having said “ I quite agree that Mr. Meyrick’s facts
will some day prove useful.” Many of the facts have already fulfilled
that purpose, but the number of our entomologists who take any
account of them is exceedingly small. Having endeavoured to uphold
one particular character of the imago above others, I will try to show
that the most valuable characters of the perfect insect are relatively of
more account than characters of the larva. It is frequently evident
that certain structures are quite useless to the insect and that they
can easily do away with them. The larva of Philampelm satellitia
affords a striking illustration. This North American Sphingid, which is
a pest at times to the vine growers, has a larva which Avhen newly
hatched has an immensely long caudal horn. After the first change
of skin the horn is very much shorter, after the second, shorter still,
and by the time the third is reached the horn has ceased to exist. We
have here strong reason to suppose that in course of time the larva
will have dispensed with the horn in all periods of its existence.
It will be remembered that the caudal horn on the larva’s 12th segment
is one of the strong family characters of the Sphinyidae. Why in this
particular species the caudal horn should be taking the downward
path is not known, or has perhaps not been thought out. Take again
Acronycta ( Triaena ) tridens and Acronycta ( Triaena ) psi. With such
closely related species it is reasonable to suppose that the larva? were
structurally alike originally ; they are, however, now quite dissimilar,
but the imagines of the two species (which must have been one
originally) are so alike that few, if any, can always separate them.
This from the facts to hand shows that the bifurcating from the
common stock was most marked in the larva as it is there we have
most divergence. If then these structures are plastic they are not so
valuable as such characters in the perfect insect which are much less
so. But there are other structural characters in the larva of which
the tubercles are not the least important.

These tubercles offer an immense amount of variation according

44

as the larva needs protection. Larvae that feed exposed have very
often no trace of them generally when the larva is protected by colour,
but on the other hand we find exposed larvae with bunches of setae on
the warts. In concealed feeding larvae, we usually find the tubercles
simple, carrying perhaps only a single hair or perhaps none at all.
But not only do the tubercles offer variation in the number and
variety of setae but they vary in position on which we bane our character,
with different changes of skin. This is to my mind the weak spot in
the classificatory value of this character. Larvae are not bound down
to any particular number of instars and if in the penultimate change,
the position of the tubercles were different to the ultimate, a change
brought about to undergo one change less in this direction would
quickly alter the former conditions. Over and above this the
prespiracular tubercle is never constant. From the moderate constancy
of the position of tubercles i, ii, iii, and iv, Dyar made six large
groups, but the number of these groups is so small that it is obvious that
many widely divergent smaller groups must be lumped together. The
structure, therefore, of the larva does not lend itself for the formation of
families. Neither does the structure of the ovum or pupa offer
itself for family formation. There is not primarily a sufficient variety.
But if the embryological stages are not found to be of value for family
demarcation, they are of the utmost importance for determining the
phylogeny of the families. I have been pointing out the claimed
value of the spiracles in the larva. These I personally believe to be of
not much consequence and for this reason. The larva, unlike the
ovum and pupa, has an infinitely greater struggle for existence and
therefore has to undergo a corresponding number of modifications.
This we find to be the case and although the covering or cocoon of
the pupa has very many modifications, the actual pupa itself has no
power per se of modifying its conditions, the larva forming the cocoon
before histolysis has commenced. Although the pupal state follows
the larval, embryological conditions hold to a much greater degree in
the former. From this reason it appears that we should place very
much greater value on ovum and pupa than upon the larva embryo-
logically, that is, in studying the phylogeny. Dr. Chapman, who I
suppose must have taken this view, has in his very valuable paper on
the phylogeny of the lepidoptera treated upon the ovum and pupa only
and left out the larva. Tutt, in his British Lepidoptera appears to
take the same view. Speaking of the larva and pupa he says : “ It is
necessary therefore in dealing with these stages (larval and pupal)
to bear in mind two points : — (1) Whether the similarities which one
sees are phylogenetic .... or (2) Whether they are oecological
in their origin and due to a similar relationship of the animals to their
organic and inorganic environment. The characters manifest in the
egg state must almost of necessity belong to the first division ; those
in the active larval (considered as an embryonic) condition may belong
to the first or second.” Mr. Tutt does not suggest to which the pupa
belongs. It is undoubtedly to the first along with the egg. Thus,
although he does not say so in so many words, I think it is fair to
assume that he gives much greater weight to the ovum and pupa than
to the larva in determining the phylogeny. It would be presumption on
my part to speak fully on the phylogeny of the lepidoptera with so
little knowledge and after such work as Dr. Chapman’s on this

45

subject. 1 will, however, venture this point, that while Dr. Chapman’s
paper on the phytogeny and evolution of the lepidoptera, is from the
oval and pupal standpoint, it is also from the only satisfactory stand¬
point we can take, if we are to work, as biologists say we should work,
on embryological characters. There are, however, certain characters
in the imago which there appears to be no reason for rejecting when
working in this direction. Comstock separates all the lepidoptera
into two large divisions by the insect having either a frenulum or a
jugum. This separation is quite valueless by itself as the jugum is
not supposed to fulfil the same purpose as the frenulum and there are
many insects which have neither structure. It is useful, however, in
that we can trace the jugum to a structure in some neuroptera, and in
the fact that the origin of lepidoptera from that order is sub¬
stantiated by this character taken in conjunction with the pupal
evidence, and showing that the Jugatae are the lowest of
the lepidoptera. But, besides the frenulum and jugum struc¬
tures, there is that character already touched on, the neuration.
It is already ceded that the ovum and pupa offer themselves
for phylogenetically arranging the groups, because oecology can
play no part in their structure. It thus seems to me that if we can
satisfy ourselves that the neuration of the perfect insect cannot undergo
change (ecologically, we are perfectly justified in assigning to it a
place of phylogenetic value also. Probably in the vast majority of
individuals oecology plays no part in the neuration, but I cannot
altogether think that it never does. It is hard to believe that the
hindwing of some species is not modified by circumstances and outward
conditions. The members of the curious genus Hirnantopterus afford
a good illustration. Of the very few members of the genus the
hindwing shows extra-modification in each species, and point to very
unstable conditions. Environment of course may be outside the cause
altogether, but with such closely related species, and occupying so
completely an isolated position, it is probable that some external agent
is playing its part. Hampson, in his Moths of India, vol. i.,
remarks about these insects : “ They are degraded forms which have
arisen from an ancestral type ; the veinlet in the cell and vein lc of
forewings being more or less developed, show that they belong to the
Zygaenidae and the absence of mouthparts places them in the subfamily
Phandinae, near Pryeria, while on the other hand they are allied to
the Psychidae.” We are not told what the degraded forms are
degraded from, and there is no suggestion. But the species themselves
show stages of modification, and although the term degraded is used,
specialised probably is better adapted. With species closely related in
every way, it is impossible to conceive any other than extreme forces
acting to bring about modification. Upon this rule Hirnantopterus
tends to prove that neuration, in the hindwing at all events, cannot be
of the same value as evidence taken from the ovum and pupa. But
although the hindwing appears to be capable of undergoing modifica¬
tion, and, as a result, neuration undergoing modification, the forewing
seems much more fixed, and I can think of no parallel case to Iliinan-
topterus with the forewing. And from this it is not unlikely that in
the neuration of the forewing we have much more fixed characters, in¬
deed, the fact of our detecting so many more modifications in the
hindwing goes to prove this. Meyrick, writing in the Zoologist, in

46

1898, said : “It maybe doubted whether any group of animals exhibits
a better character than theneuration of insects, which displays sufficient
complexity and variation in the number and interconnection of the
different veins, whilst at the same time it is practically unaffected by
external forces except occasionally the easily calculable influence of a
change in the form of wing ; moreover the modifications effected are
often irrevocable, and therefore less puzzling to follow.” That the
modificationsareirrevocableisadmittedly true, but that the change in the
form of wing is an easily calculated influence cannot always be the case,
particularly in the hindwing. But from the very fact that a change
in the form of wing brings about neurational change, it is clear that we
should treat the subject with that knowledge, and not implicitly cling
to any and every phase of neuration. This change in the form of wing
seems to be the only weak spot in the value of neuration, and if we can
calculate, as Meyrick says we can, the influence, there is no reason why
in conjunction with other important characters (which is all-important)
we should not place the greatest value we can upon it. Of individual
variety of neuration, for which reason some workers almost totally
ignore that structure, there is this to be said, viz., that it is only what one
must expect. No two individuals, be they of any order from man down¬
wards, are identical even in structure. In the great majority of cases the
variation is only a variation in size, be it length, breadth or thickness,
but variation in the position of any one structure is not unheard of, in
fact the one is rather an outcome of the other in the system of neura¬
tion, and it seems to me possible to imagine that if a moth has anyone
vein particularly well-developed, say in length, the vein in closest
proximity to it will be probably correspondingly shorter, and will
therefore of necessity terminate or arise in a different position. It is
obvious that, with a complex structure like the neuration, any such
small primary variation can be the cause of further variation when the
one vein is dependent upon its position to others. To shut one’s eyes
to the value, apart from the utility of neuration as a means of classify¬
ing, is, in the face of results now arrived at, inexcusable. Inde¬
pendently of the assistance of other characters we place Arctiids,
Noctuids, and Lymantriids in close relationship, and this is also the
result arrived at by study of the embryological stages. It must therefore
be obvious that our work in this direction is of real value. Until now
the great obstacle to its general acceptance is the fact that the workers
who have taken up the subject are one-sided. It is perfectly true that
we all tend to be specialists, and, moreover, the age we live in deiAands
it, but we all require a general education first, and wTe should not lose
touch with it as soon as we begin to specialise. If the work of Meyrick
and Hampson had from the beginning been tempered with con¬
siderations of biology, which I have called the “ general educa¬
tion,” I venture to think that the study of neuration would have
attracted much more attention than it has done. I alluded above to
the correct result of neuration in placing Arctiids, Noctuids, and
Lymantriids close together in descent, but on referring to Hampson’s
further arrangement we find that Notodonts are separated from these by
such families as Sjdiim/idac and Cymcitopharidae. The futility of such an
arrangement has already been exposed by Dr. Chapman from egg
characters, who has shown us that Notodontidae have upright eggs,
and must therefore be correlated with other upright-egged families of

47

which the Noctuidae would probably be the nearest. Except for the
Geometridae the Notodontidae are the most perplexing from their
neuration. Apart from their general appearance that suggests the
Sphinyidae, the neuration has precisely the same characteristics, includ¬
ing in two or three species the unusual short bar connecting vein 8 to 7
in the hindwing, and the position of vein 5 which arises at equal
distances from 4 and G. It is extremely interesting, however, to find
that we have a link for this latter character so that we can trace even
neurationally connection with the Noctuids. The genus Cyphanta,
which contains two North Indian species, shows vein 5 arising almost
from the corner of the cell with vein 4, but still has the small
connecting bar between 7 and 8 of the hindwing, and other traits
characteristic of the Notodontidae. It thus appears that, although no
doubt can now be held in regard to the position of this family, viewing
the case from all sides, there must have been further links that have
died out and thus have made our task the more difficult. If it had not
been for the knowledge of the embryological stages we should probably
never have departed from the old idea that Sphingids and Notodonts
were closely allied, and more than likely never have looked for a
relationship in the neuration. But I am on ground on which I said I
would not detain you. We already have grouped our insects into large
divisions or families by essential structural affinities shown throughout
their existence. If a structure in one stage is at variance with what
we have laid down as rules, it must be that that particular structure
is not fixed enough for family diagnosis, and is only suitable
for minor subdivisions, such as we know as genera or even for species.
It may be also that we interpret it wrongly, as has been the case with
the neuration, for want of fuller knowledge of the insect’s existence. In
the case of families it is found that no single character will hold for
definition. It is also true of genera in a still greater degree. Inde¬
pendent working on any single character invariably breaks down in the
face of other characters. The minor structural parts are, particularly in
the imago, so numerous, that we find we are able to give genera very
varying interpretations. We make these groups perhaps by the antenme
of the imago differing only from those of another group, or, may be, the
palpi, the leg structures, or the presence or absence of ocelli ; in the early
stages also, where any character holds for a number of individuals, we
give a name to that group and call it a genus. Now it seems to me
that although this is perhaps useful from the point of view of conveni¬
ence, it is not necessarily a statement of the true genealogy of the
species. My point is this : x411 structures, even minor structures, are
not of the same fixity. We can define some genera much better than
others, some have a larger number of recognisable characters than
others. We often speak of a very natural genus, meaning that the
genus is well differentiated from all others. But in these latter days
of entomology Avhen large genera are split up again and again by slight
structural differences, surely these cannot he of the same rank as the
well-defined or very natural genera ? If they are not of the same rank
they should not go by the designation, and I am glad to see there are
some entomologists who are recognising this, and dividing genera into
sections A, B and C, or more according to the facts of the special case.
The definition of a genus is hard if not impossible, but the cases are
considerably lessened by the system of sections. The conditions for

48

forming a genus at the present time are so varied that it would take
an altogether unknown quantity of sheets of foolscap to state them.
In point of fact a genus is a collection of species which have been
descended from a common parent. But that collection of species may
have undergone one or more of an infinite number of different conditions,
and called into play those habits and structures which are most bene¬
ficial to that collection of individuals. It follows, therefore, that one
set of individuals will develop one structure better than another set,
which will not require such modification. This is exemplified on all
sides. We find larvae of one group easily separated from larvae of another
group. Some particular structure of the imago is different in one group
from another, although otherwise the divergence is hardly perceptible. The
difficulty in dealing with all these various phases is to decide how many of
these characters are going to be considered as being ground for forming a
genus. If say, that a species of Noctuid is closely connected with the
genus Xanthia by its larva and egg, but in the perfect state has lost
the general characteristics and has slightly different structures also,
are we to form a new genus for that species ? My answer would be no
for a genus, but yes for some sectional division. With the fresh
discovery of minor structural divergences the number of genera are
increasing by leaps and bounds, and it would seem that in perhaps a
hundred years or more each species will be in a separate genus. But
to come back to our question as to whether we should create a new
genus for our particular species. We must satisfy ourselves whether
the structural differences we see are oecological or not. If it is possible
that they are so, and that the whole life-history of the insect is extremely
close to another, and the characters of the egg and pupa (essentially
the embryological characters) show strong affinity, there can be no
reasonable cause for separating the two. Characters, which we have
strong reason for supposing to be so easily acted upon, are in
themselves of no better value than for species demarcation. Although
in the present state of our knowledge it is difficult to understand why
the genitalia should be so easily influenced, we are forced to assume that
they are so, as we find that in some species that are exceedingly close
to one another, this structure varies so much that we are able to make
use of it as a specific character. It remains to be seen whether even
this structure is always sufficiently constant in local races of a species.
Has for instance Lycaena agestis from the South of France got identical
genitalia as (what we know to be only a variety of it) artaxerxes from
Scotland ? It is admittedly probable that it has, but if there is a diver¬
gence we should be compelled to give it less importance than even
species rank. Genera at the present day appear to be made much too
much for the sake of catalogue, and not sufficiently thought out as to
whether they are sufficiently natural genera or not. It is also thought that
because structural differences are used that there can be no doubt that
the splitting is justified. Meyrick in his paper last year to the Zoologist,
writes “ Characters of colour and general form are bad only because
they are particularly liable to be modified by changes of environment.
Now some structural characters are quite as liable, and are therefore
equally bad” and then goes on to illustrate the beaks of birds. I think
Meyrick has, however, missed out a word, and that word is generically.
Those characters that are particularly liable, should be taken for specific
value when possible, but if they are common to two or more species,

49

from my point of view they are not of necessity cause for making a
genus of them, but as merely a section probably of another genus. As
we shall presently see with species, we are too often, in our exactitude,
led away into subdivisions which are of themselves inexact because the
divisions, all going under one name have such a varying factor of fixity.
It is already stated, and it must be obvious to every scientific worker
that it is impossible for all our genera to have their being under the
same conditions. Markings of egg, minor structural differences in
larva, pupa, or imago, complete difference in habit, such as the larva
of one species being an internal, the other an external feeder, are all
severally or by combinations of two or more of these traits, held to be
of sufficient specialisation for the formation of a genus. But the
internal larva calls for a different structure from the external, and there¬
fore this habit is, or should be, only considered under the larval
structural character and not stand alone as of value. As is true of
everything in nature there is gradation, and we actually have lame
that are external for part of their existence, and internal for the other
part. Leucania brevilinea is a case in point which has a larva that feeds
within the reed stem until it is attaining towards full growth, and then
feeds on the leaves, but always still hiding by day within the reed.
At first glance it would appear as if this insect was an internal feeder
and of that stock, and was gradually becoming an external feeder, from
the fact that generally we know of internal feeding larvfe as being
generalised in structure. In the first place, the true or absolute
internal feeding Noctuids, such as Nonagria, are not the lowest Noctuids,
and it must be assumed that their internal habit is a recent one called
into use for protection’s sake. Certain traits correlated with generalised
internal feeders, such as a delicate cuticle and great elongation, are
brought about from the habit of feeding within long narrow reeds.' Of
course if one goes far enough back one must believe that these rather
specialised internal feeders were remotely descended from internal
feeders of a generalised type. To come back then to Leucania brevilinea,
if it has not quite reached perfect protection by absolute internal feed¬
ing it has not advanced so far as true Nonagrias which spend their
whole larval (and pupal) existence within the stem. Leucania phraq-
mitidis has reached further than L. brevilinea, it feeding wholly within
the stem, and only coming out to pupate in moss near the root. L.
lutosa has advanced still further for protection’s sake. It feeds wholly
within the stem and feeds down to the root where, it emerges to pupate
without any wandering for a suitable place for pupation.

It is obvious then that upon the feeding habit, as enunciated, we
have not very clear grounds for working with. Are we to have two
genera dominated by the characters of the two extremes, and to fit in
all the intermediates according as the greater number of characters
leans towards ? Or, again, shall we place all the intermediates in one group
between the two as has even already been done ? What we have to
answer in reality is : did those two or three groups have a common ances¬
tor more recently than the family relationship? If they did then they
should have some grouping distinction, whatever it may be. A genus
should occupy the same position to species as a species does to the various
forms which are bred from a single individual which are known as varie¬
ties. As soon as any of those varieties become definite and fixed to pro¬
duce their kind they become species. If then we can satisfy ourselves

60

that the divergence of a group of species took place more recently than from
the family ancestor, we are correct in placing those species in a genus.
Although we have departed from the idea that the families could be
placed as linear descendants one of the other, we have hardly thrown
off the old idea when we come to genera in a family. But it is equally
fallacious. Let us consider the special Leucanias again. It is
not the existing external feeders that have been derived from the present
internal feeders. That the two are derived from a common stock is
true, but how many generations are we to include for the next sub¬
division ? One thing always seems to me clear, that if we are to sub¬
divide so greatly it will be necessary to have many more terms for those
subdivisions than we already have. Our genera hold too varying
a value. At any one period of the world’s history it is quite impossible
to know what the relations were then of species to species and groups
to groups. We have no means of ascertaining when one variable insect
gave place to those varieties which of themselves were destined to
become species. Some took place at one period, some at another.
Those that took place earliest have therefore become more fixed, and
those the latest least. But must we have genera so unequal that those
that have remained as genera, so called, for ages, are to stand alongside
small groups of species (also called genera) that have a less general
relationship, and therefore different relationship ? Let me try to illustrate
my point. For many years we included all our five Theclids in one
genus Theda. They were acknowledged to be related by certain ties.
With more intimate knowledge of our species it was found that we
could subdivide our genus into three smaller groups, and we called them
Zephyrus, Callophrys , Theda. But Theda has altered its relationship,
and, instead of being a genus, has moved up to a family relationship in
reality. But we still retain it as a genus and leave that family
relationship or higher, wider grouping without any designation at
all. The old arrangement was, if the species were really related,
perfectly sound, perhaps not so convenient, but there was no error.
We make the error in our supposed rectification in not giving Theda
a family relationship over the genera into which it divides up.
Attempts have been made to cope with the difficulty and we find genera
split up into named sections, a course which gives a genus a general
relationship to the subdivision, and is equivalent to calling if a family.
We have the old genus Acronycta thus split up. But it is quite possible
that some day we shall find that one of the sections is subdivisible,
and then it would be necessary to find some new name for the value of
that subdivision. The greater this subdivision the more relationship
is it necessary to give if we wish to avoid artificial methods for locating
our species.

One more word about genera. From what has already been said
it should be clear to everyone that we at present have genera that can
be said to stand for father, grandfather, back to an almost indefinite
relationship to the collection of individuals under it. In just the
same way as species in a genus, all the genera of a family, countless
ages back, are descended from a still more remote ancestor. If we
could only have the written pedigree of every insect we at present
know of, we should require an almost endless number of headings, in
other words relationships. It thus always, to my mind, appears that
it is quite impossible to really naturally classify with only the few

51

scanty groupings of — family— subfamily — genus — subgenus and
species. Darwin in his Origin of Species, says “ groups of species such
as orders, suborders, families, subfamilies and genera, seem to be at
least at present almost arbitrary. ’ The outcome of all the research
with regard to the structure of our insects has already been to reveal that
subdivision is necessary, but do not let us create genera upon genera
when we ought to be grouping them under some more intelligible
heading. The jump from some of the more recent so-called genera,
is, on consideration, altogether unintelligible, and by no means a
statement of the valuable facts already gleaned, which should be part
of the definition of science itself. It need hardly be remarked that, if
our genera are so ill-defined, our families must also be ill-defined and of
a flexible nature. In our primary grouping, namely, that of common
individuals to a species, we try and make our heading as narrowed as
we can. We recognise that varieties are not entitled to be called
species, and also that subvarieties are not entitled to be called varieties
and we endeavour to keep them separated and thus defined, although
all come under the broad head or family relationship of species. The
aberration that occurs with the type is only just commencing to become
individualised, while the variety which we call a race, which is separated
in some particular spot, is much nearer becoming a species. We
make these distinctions in the lowest subdivision, although we still
require a vast number more names for the great number of various
stages previous to an individual’s becoming a species. Let us look at
some of our well known British species. We have perhaps not yet
forgotten the Tephrosia tangle and the amount of discussion that it
aroused, the question being whether we had a particular two species
that were very similar or only one. The summary as set forth by
Tutt was this: “We have (1) the differences in the eggs; (2) the
differences in the general character and appearance of the imagines ;
(3) the difference in the shape of the wings ; (4) the independent life-
histories of the two insects ; (5) the constant difference in the times
of appearance ; (6) the fixed double-broodedness of one and the single
of the other ; (7) the fact that the two insects breed true, and always
produce their own kind.” But although there are all these
differences, what are they when we compare another species of the
same genus that has differences of twice the number of characteristics ?
That third species must have passed through many more phases
before it arrived at all these differences, and has probably taken a much
longer period also to develop them. And my question comes to this —
What is the value of a species, or rather what is the minimum diver¬
gence in time, structure, habit, or any other characteristic, taken
severally or conjointly, that is to determine whether we have a species
or not ? If we are to settle this by saying that it is a matter for
individual opinion to decide whether the amount of divergence is
sufficient, then we must see that as all our species have not been
described by one individual, we must have a large number of very
unequal species. Even if the one individual could have described all
the species, as all these species have not become so on the same lines,
it must have been almost impossible to weigh characteristic with
characteristic, so that every species should have passed through an
equal amount of specialisation. In regard to the former remarks, the
multitude of describers with their varying ideas as to a species, has

52

given rise to one of the most harrassing nuisances in entomology.
Species that are thought to be species by one individual, are duly
described ; another worker sinks them under some other species, and
in a few years the same thing is redescribed by someone else, and then
later on it is found there are two names for the same individual. The
priority rule says we should hold to the former name, and although
the second may have been in use for years we compel ourselves to
change it for the former. This is of course not all, we have to remember
the other name as well if we want to read about our subject. You
are, however, to hear a paper on synonymy, so I must not trespass.

I have introduced it merely to show that it is of our own making in
great measure through this varying standard of species rank. That
the standard is varying is admitted pretty generally. Tutt says
“ that there is no real distinction between races and species is certain,
the matter often resolving itself into one of opinion; ” that the matter
is only a case for opinion is true, so long as we do not insist on any
one or more special traits being necessary to determine whether an
insect has diverged sufficiently from others to rank as species. In the
case of the two Tephrosias — bistortata and crepuscularia — the two
Triaenas — psi and tridens — certain Anthrocerids and others, the amount
of divergence is nothing like that in the large majority of our named
species. Why then do we place them in the same rank ? If the one
is being descended from the others, then the more fixed or older form
is taking the rank of a genus, looking upon a genus in the genealogical
sense. Then in turn that genus will be wholly unequal to the vast
majority of the genera generally. We have been discussing a species
when we know all about it ; how difficult must it therefore be when we
have only the imago ! Cockerell says : “ The essential distinctions between
species are physiological, the morphological ones being only valid so
far as they happen to coincide with the physiological.” Tutt, falling
in with this view says: “ Thus the two forms of Amphidasys betularia
in spite of their external differences, cross freely in a state of nature ;
whilst Anthroccra trifolii and A. lonicerae, although equally able to cross
and produce fertile progeny, are specialised in a state of nature to
some particular food-plant, habit and habitat, and are maintained
distinct.” In the meantime, with the hosts of insects of which we
know nothing of their life-history, we unfortunately have to totally
rely on the morphological characters. The recent attention called to
the genitalia, tends to show that we here may have a morphological
character upon which to place some reliance. The character has the
great advantage that as far as we can see is not influenced by any
cecological cause. Although I am entirely with Cockerell in saying
that the essential distinctions between species are physiological, I do
not follow him in the second part of his remarks, namely, that the
morphological ones are only valid so far as they happen to coincide
with the physiological. I maintain that certain morphological
characters are the entire result of the primary physiological distinctions,
and are therefore every bit as valid. The insect, for instance, that is
closely related to another, but specialised to a particular food-plant,
will perhaps grow to a larger or less size, and if it were found by actual
measurement that within certain limits the two forms kept to their
own respective measurement, this could be taken as a specific
value. The instance of size is perhaps not such a happy one as

58

might have been chosen, but it is one that might easily and does
happen. We have a well known instance of size in our Selenia
hilunorta and juliaria. It is true that in this case the food-plant is
not the reason of the difference, but the altered time of appearance.

Do eggs laid by the summer brood alicays produce a spring brood
or do they repeat the summer emergence only occasionally ? And also
do imagines as a rule, or under any circumstances, that hatch in the
spring, only produce the spring brood '? The experiments of Mr. Merri-
field give us an answer to the latter question. He has found that with a
l educed temperature the second brood fails. In nature this is exempli¬
fied in northern and western Scotland, and probably elsewhere. An
answer is not forthcoming to the former query. One surmises that
the spring brood yields a summer brood, and the summer brood the
spring brood. But it is possible under certain conditions that the
summer brood might fail to produce the spring brood. This might
commence sporadically, but in course of time become regular. Should
we then, as soon as this summer emergence fails to yield spring
emergences, call it a species ? It would depend upon our arbitration.
My personal answer would be no — not until the isolation had caused
a greater amount of divergence. The divergence would be certain to
take place at a later period. That the form should be named is
indisputable, but not named with species rank, but as subspecies or
some other such title. The use of the term subspecies shows now
very evidently that there are some of our workers who feel that the
number of denominations is too limited. Even with our species —
subspecies — variety — and aberration, we are by no means able to
relegate all the individuals to these four headings without difficulty. The
trouble is, however, not comparable to the forming of genera, because we
can by breeding test our theories very often as to species. Two, three
and even a dozen so-called species can sometimes be proved to be only
one species proper, with varying facies, called forms, by rearing from the
egg. We are unable to demonstrate the same with genera for a collec¬
tion of species. In common with many others I at one time thought
that perhaps we might have a definition of a species. That is totally
impossible when we consider the various paths by which a species
obtains its fixity or differentiation from others. But it would be
possible to have a long series of categories, any one or more of which
we might accept as valid for a species taking that rank. Supposing
we fix on ten salient features from which characters we accept a species.
By a small algebraical calculation we should have 1022 groups, from
any one of which a species could take its standing as fulfilling one or
more of those ten features. This is admittedly only taking ten main
points. We might raise that number, and then the groups would
be still more numerous. I cannot but think that as time goes on and as
we still get nearer and nearer to exactitude, that the results to which
our classification leads us will compel us to adopt some such scheme.

If we look upon classification as an artificial arrangement for placing
together the forms most like each other, and do not accept classification
as illustrating the genealogy of the beings, there can be nothing to be
said against one artificial arrangement within an artificial method.
But even if we take the vein that I have been assuming this evening,
that our classification reveals the descent of living beings in nature, I
can see no objection to our maintaining certain conditions for our

54

lowest subdivision. We need not call the lowest a species, it can be
sub-species or something still less advanced than that. With a much
larger number of standard relationships the varying amount of diver¬
gence would be proportionately lessened. That we should be much
nearer being natural by such a scheme, I have already given as my
view. Primarily classification was very arbitrary with a very small
amount of the natural element. Now we have made it less arbitrary
and with more of the natural element. But that we have not yet by
any means lost the arbitrary part of it is very certain. We shall never
be able to entirely separate the two.

Gentlemen, I fear that although I have had the honour of seeing
my name down on your agenda-list for a paper, I have not satisfactorily
fulfilled the conditions for a paper. For a long time past I have had
my attention drawn to the pros and cons of classification. It is a
question that bears any amount of discussion, and if I shall have
evoked the thoughts of our members and have induced them to give
us their views this paper will have fulfilled its purpose.

A FEW DAYS AT FUSIO.

(Bead February 20th, 1900, by Dr. T. A. CHAPMAN, F.Z.S., F.E.S.)

It is many years since I determined that Fusio ought to be explored.
Baedeker, who is one’s guide, philosopher, and friend in those regions,
leaves in his index map of Switzerland one central square with Fusio
in the very middle thereof, of which he gives no detailed map. This
suggested that it was not much explored, and by the ordinary tourist
hardly worth exploring, all the more should it be interesting to the
entomologist. All sorts of reasons led my summer excursions, when I
had one, anywhere but to Fusio, and so it came about, that before my
wish to explore it was carried out, those indefatigable investigators,
the Germans, anticipated me, and had discovered some seven or eight
years ago a new butterfly in the region. Even with this further
incentive it was only last summer that I found myself in the desired
locality.

One reaches Fusio by passing through the St. Gothard tunnel, and
if the line could be continued southwards another five miles in the
direct line of the tunnel, we should reach the valley in which Fusio lies,
a few miles above that village. As a matter of fact, however, nearly a
hundred miles have to be travelled to reach it ; the railway follows the
valley of the Ticino eastward, and then southward and westward
to Locarno, and then the diligence takes one nearly due north again up
the Yal Maggia. There are several passes from the upper Ticino to
the upper Val Maggia, which might be taken ; but they would occupy
as much time as the circuit by rail and diligence, and would not admit
of baggage accompanying the traveller. Still it is quite feasible to

55

reach Fusio by stopping at Faido, a few miles below Airolo, sending
baggage on by post, and walking over the Campolungo pass to Fusio.
One may in this way begin one’s collecting a day earlier, and prospect
the ground which makes Fusio famous at the earliest possible moment.
The walk is, however, rather a long one, and involves a climb of 5100
feet. One must be in rather better training than one often is, in one’s
first day out and after a long journey, to do this comfortably and risk
the weather.

We, at any rate, took the easier if more ignoble route, and reached
Locarno one day at the end of June last, and were pleased to be
welcomed by a thunderstorm, which did not at all incommode us, and
rendered the air cool and pleasant, where we had feared to find it
insufferably hot. Next morning we proceeded to Fusio, passing the
very picturesque gorge at Ponte Brolla and reaching Bignasco, the
principal village in the valley, in time for lunch. Bignasco possesses
a good inn and would be a good centre for a short stay, being opposite
the opening of a great side valley, the Yal Bavona. ' As a matter of
fact we found two German entomologists staying here, who joined us
at Fusio a few days later. The road mounts more rapidly above
Bignasco and in some dozen more miles reaches Fusio at an altitude
of 4200ft. On the way up we saw a profusion of butterflies, chiefly
Melitaea athalia, An/ynnis adippe var. cleodoxa, A. latona, and many
others that we did not verify. Polyommatus avion was taken and seen
abundantly, great large fellows nearly twice the size of those taken ten
weeks before at Locarno. On rocks, by the way, cases of Bankesia
alpestrella were present, as they also were at Fusio. Fusio is situated
rather finely at a point where the cataract from the Campolungo pass
joins the main stream near the top of a rather more rapid ascent than
generally prevails in the valley. Shortly above Fusio the valley
extends for some miles, without any considerable ascent, past the
chalets of Sambuco.

In the immediate neighbourhood of Fusio, many insects are
abundant. At the beginning of July we took Erebia medusa behind
the village, and nearly everywhere, up to 2000ft. above Fusio, Erebia veto
was common, flying in a lazy flapping manner very much like that of E.
aethiops , caught with the greatest ease unless on very awkward ground.
The females were not seen till a week or two later. The chief entomo¬
logical attraction of Fusio is the little butterfly that flies in the Campo¬
lungo pass, the smallest of the Erebias, Erebia Jiavofasciata. We
went in search of this and explored many slopes on both sides
of the pass ; this involves a considerable walk, with a climb of
3500ft. to the top of the pass, and having no knowledge of the habits
of the butterfly and its precise habitat, and being out of favour with
the weather on one or two occasions, having a sunless sky, it was some
time before we managed to find it, and not then without some
assistance from our German confreres, who had by this time, settled
down at Fusio. E . Jiavofasciata occurs at an elevation of 7000ft., and
always on slopes of grass in close association with the outcrop of a
white rock of dolomitic composition which is here bedded in ancient
crystalline strata. This seems to be the circumstance that makes the
butterfly so local, and enabled it to escape detection till so recent a
period. We were told that it had been met with on a pass some ten
miles to the north-west over the same range, but we did not visit this

56

spot, and so I cannot verify that the geological conditions are identical,
but that seems to be very probable. The only other locality I have
heard of, is that recorded by Mr. Nicholson who has specimens from
near Pontresina, some 60 miles almost due east. I do not know
what the geological conditions may be in its eastern habitat. At
Campolungo there are a good many rare plants, but whether there
are any rare and local grasses that might perchance be its food-
plant and thus account for the localisation of the butterfly I do not
know. We found on the same ground as E.Jiavofasciata, Psodos quadri-
faria flying freely, interesting from the circumstance that with
t'atasta auriciliella and some other alpine forms, it has a disposition of
yellow markings on its wings, which seems calculated to secure the
same effect and possibly the same objects that E . Jiavofasciata looks for
in its peculiar markings. Amongst the butterflies met with at Fusio
was Erebia mnestra ; it was only coming out and a few males were
taken, generally in fine condition, it was most abundant in one or two
little gullies at about 6000ft. on the sides of the Campolungo pass, flying
along with Melampias epiphron and swarms of Erebia tyndarux. We again
met with this butterfly at about 5500ft., near Macugnaga, in a damp
opening in the wood by a stream, again only males were taken (July
20th). On the Simplon about 5500ft. we once more found males in
very fair condition along the roadside, but no trace of females. In the
Laquinthal, at the same date males were found in very worn condition,
and here females were met with (July 80th). At Evolena, between
Ferpecle and the Alp Bricolla, at 7200ft., the species was found on a
limited slope in great abundance, both sexes occurred, the males perhaps
more freely, the females were a little worn, most of the males very much so
(August 10th). The female of this species is regarded as very much
rarer than the male, and this is the only place where I have taken it
freely. It is, of course, as everyone knows, the rule for the males of
nearly all lepidoptera to appear before the females, and the fact is
nowhere perhaps more forced on one’s notice than amongst the Erebiae,
and the effect very often is to leave one with the impression that the
males and females occupy different localities. At Simplon, where males
were not uncommon, we asked ourselves as to mnestra, where were the
females ? The answer no doubt was, not yet emerged, although they
were already rather worn in the adjacent Laquinthal. I have been
very much impressed with the same facts as to E. euryale, at Mendel
and some other places. The males would be abundant wherever one
went, but no females could be seen, and this continued for ten days or
a fortnight, then a female or two would appear, then moving on to
another locality one would find females abundant but hardly a male
could be found. I doubt very much whether we understand more than
very superficially anything about the explanation of these facts. That
the male should come out before the female, and have already powers
of vigorous flight by the time she emerges, seems easily understood and
to be distinctly advantageous. But that he should emerge a fortnight
before the female and that many should perish and the majority be
torn and wasted by that date, and that females should still emerge
when the males are represented by only a few exhausted individuals, is
difficult to understand. Also what comes of sexual selection, which
we must look for amongst butterflies, if anywhere in insects, if the
females have little or no chance of ever seeing a freshly emerged male

57

in full beauty. I can only make one suggestion in partial explanation,
and that is that our facts are in some degree imperfect, that the ? does
really emerge much earlier than we suppose, but that she keeps perfectly
quiet and does not show herself for some time after, not until she is fertilised
and has acquired some power of flight, which is no doubt rather defective
in many female butterflies when fresh, and before they have deposited some
ova. I may also note in connection with E. mnestra, the extreme simi¬
larity, almost amounting to identity except in size, between the females
of E . mnestra and E. ylacialis. Till I worked out a classification on the S
genitalia, E. ylacialis was always associated with E. scipio, epistyyne and
other large species with which it has little in common except size, and
mnestra was similarly placed with the smaller manto, epiphron, &c., with
which it has no immediate alliance. The genitalia showed mnestra and
ylacialis to belong clearly to the same group, whilst manto, &c., belonged
to another, and E. scipio, &c., to a third. It is curious that no one had
noted the close resemblance of the ? s of the two species, which is so
obvious when looked for, but would, I suppose, have been regarded as
meaningless, if not misleading, when the close alliance of the two
species was unsuspected.

Amongst the species taken at Fusio are some specimens of Lycaena
alcon. We met with it afterwards at Macugnaga, and the forms at
the two places seem to be slightly different. L. alcon is not, I believe,
an uncommon species, but it so happens that I have only twice before
met with it, and so it interested me a little. I thought it might
interest you to show along with these specimens some of the three allied
species, L. euphemus, L. areas and L. avion, as well as the less close L. iolas,
whose male very much resembles that of L. alcon. A discrimination of
these species by their upper surfaces is really difficult, and especially
by description. It is easy by the undersides, and here both sexes of
each species agree instead of requiring separate treatment.

The abundance of larvae and pupae of Anthrocera exulans on one slope
in the Campolungo Pass was phenomenal. Stones lying about of all
sizes were abundant, and on many of these a dozen or more cocoons
of A. exulans would be clustered, and it was difficult to find a stone with¬
out one or more cocoons.

Setina aurita in much variety was abundant at all the stations we
visited, not only at Fusio, but Macugnaga, Simplon, Evolena, &c.
The imagines were foimd at Locarno in May, and were still coming out
at Arolla after mid-August, and half-grown larvae occurred even at
that date, another of the many instances of the long seasons of
emergence that many insects have where, as on the Italian slopes of
the Alps, alpine and almost subtropical conditions occur at a few miles
distance. I may note Melitaea plioebe, taken April and July ; Stand-
fussia tenella (var. zerm attensis), April to August ; Hercyna sclirankiana,
April to August. These cases are to be distinguished from those of
double-broodedness, as in the case of Polyommatus orion, where a dwarfed
form occurred at Locarno in April, and a large form in July, the
difference being that in the latter case the species does not inhabit any
of the higher levels. Melitaea phoebe, which I have mentioned above,
has no great range of elevation, but the April and July specimens were
clearly one brood, the April specimens at Locarno, the July ones some
distance up the Maggia Valley towards, but below, Fusio.

Along with Erebia jiavofasciata, at various parts of the Campolungo

58

Pass, other interesting species are met with ; Malacosoma alpicola, so
closely allied to our common M. neustria, was frequently represented by
odd specimens of full-grown larvae, and at one place the colonies of
younger larvae on the turf of the open hill-side were quite common. The
young larvae are practically indistinguishable from those of M. neustria ;
the full-grown ones are without several of the longitudinal lines that
persist in that species. Brenthis pales was just coming out, and we
failed to capture one remarkable specimen we saw, that was little, if at
all, larger than Cupido minima. A nice form of Anarta melanopa flew
freely at the top of the pass, but we did not learn how to capture it as
freely. Mr. Edwards, however, succeeded in the even more difficult
task of bagging Pieris callidice, of which hardly a specimen escaped him.
He was equally expert in finding specimens of several species of
Gnoplios freely on rocks, where Dianthoecia caesia and some other
Noctuids were found.

On the slopes close to Fusio a very splendid metallic green beetle
with pink stripes ( Oreina , sp.) was abundant. The polymorphism of
this beetle was very interesting, and even puzzling. We met with it
again at Macugnaga, and distinct differences in the forms prevalent at
the two places were obvious. At Fusio, the mass, including nearly all
J s, were green, but some black males were not uncommon, as well as
a few blue ones. At Macugnaga there were many blue males, as well
as both males and females of the black colour and females of the blue
form. The presumption that there were three species was very strong
until they were found in cop. in various combinations.

I have brought practically all my captures for your observation — the
good, bad, and indifferent — thinking that a longer series gives a better
idea than a short one of the general facies of a species and of the range
of its variation in the district illustrated, and that this outweighs any
feeling I might have of being ashamed of showing you bad and ill-set
specimens. At the same time, I may say that of many species that
were common, I only took a specimen or two, and of some took none,
or handed them over to other members of our party, as Papilio podalinus,
P. machaon , Sy rich thus sao, Parnassius deltas, Spilothyrus alceae,
Anthocaris belia, &c.

The following list would, I think, include all the butterflies we saw
or took : —

Papilio machaon.

,, podaliriut.

Parnassius apollo, frequent.

„ clelius, Simplon.

Aporia crataegi.

Pieris brassicae.

„ rapae.

,, napi.

,, callidice, Fusio, Ac.
Euchloe cardamines, Fusio, Ac.
Leucopliasia sinapis, ,,

Colias palaeno, ,,

,, phicomone, ,,

„ hyale,

Gonepteryx rhamni, ,,

Callophrys ruin, ,,

Ghrysophanus gordius, Simplon.
,, eurybia, Fusio, Ac.

,, dorilis, ,,

„ phlaeas, ,,

Plebeim aegon, Fusio, Ac.

,, argus, common.

Polyommatus optilete, Macugnaga.

,, orion, Bignasco.

,, pheretes, Fusio, Ac.

,, orbitulus, Evolena abundant,
Simplon.

,, astrarche, Fusio, Ac.

,, eros, ,,

,, icarus, ,,

,, eumedon, Fusio, Macugnaga.

„ escheri, Fusio.

,, cor y don, abundant.

,, liylas, Fusio, Ac.

,, donzelii, Simplon.

Cyaniris argiolus, Fusio.

Cupido minima, abundant.

Nomiades semiargus, abundant.

Lycaena alcon, Fusio, Macugnaga.

,, arion, frequent.

59

Polygonia c-album, Bignasco.

Eugonia polychloros, Fusio.

Aglais urticae, Fusio.

Euvanessa antiopa, Fusio, larvae, Ao.

Melitaea cynthia , Fusio, Ac.

„ merope, Simplon.

,, phoebe, Bignasco.

„ dictynna , Fusio, Ac.

„ athalia , ab.

Brenthis euphrosyne, Fusio, Ac.

,, pales, ,,

,, amathusia, „

„ thore, Macugnaga.

Argynnis aglaia, Fusio, &c.

,, niobe, ,,

,, var. cleodoxa, Bignasco.

„ paphia, „

Melanargia galathea, Fusio.

(Eneis aello, Fusio.

Satyrus semele, Evolena.

,, cordula, Val Anzasca, Maggia.

Pararge maera, Fusio, &c.

„ megaera, Fusio.

,, egei ia, ,,

Epinepliele lycaon.

„ janira , Fusio, Ac.

Coenonympha arcania, ,,

Erebia ligea, Fusio.

i Erebia euryale, Fusio, Ac.

,, cpiphron, Fusio, Ac.

„ pharte , Fusio.

„ melampus.

„ christi, Simplon.

,, flavofasciata, Fusio.

,, ceto, Fusio, Ac.

„ aethiops, Fusio.

,, mnestra, Fusio, Ac.

„ gorge, „

,, glacialis, Evolena.

,, tyndarus abundant.

,, pronoe, Simplon.

,, goante, Fusio, Ac.

,, stygne, Arolla.

,, lappona, Fusio, Ac.

,, evias, Fusio.

,, medusa, ,,

Spilothyrus alceae, Bignasco.

,, lavaterae, ,,

Syrichthus fritillum, Fusio, Ac.

,, malvae, Fusio.

„ sao, Simplon.

Nisoniades tapes, Fusio, Ac.
Thymelicus thaumas, Macugnaga.

„ lineola, abundant.
Pamphila sylvanus, Fusio.

„ comma, Macugnaga.

Mr. Prout has examined the Geometrids and has made the following
notes on them.

Notes by L. B. Prout, F.E.S., on the Geometrids collected by
Dr. T. A. Chapman, at Fusio.

Total number of species about 40, comprising : Acidalia 6 species,
3 ( fiaveolaria , incanata, fumata), more or less characteristically moun¬
tain species. Gnophos, 4 or 5 species ; the series of G. glaucinaria variable
and interesting, the darkest example quite unequalled by anything in
the very long series from the Zeller and Frey collections, not at all
resembling the dark var. plumbeolaria, Stgr., from the Eheingau, which
is of quite a different tone and much less sharply marked ; the 3
G.dilucidaria ! also variable and seem very sharply marked, and the top
two of rather a white, glossy ground-colour. Dasydia tenebraria $ ,
high Alpine species, Frey gives its distribution from 9000' to beyond
10,000'. The example is intermediate between the almost unicolorous
type and the whitish-banded ab. ton-aria, Hb. Psodos. — This interest¬
ing alpine genus is represented by 4, if not by the whole of the 5 known
species. The top specimen is somewhat puzzling, and seems to me
to be nearest a weakly marked aberration of the local altieolaria,
Mann, a species apparently confined to the highest Alps of Piedmont,
Switzerland and the Tyrol, and usually strongly marked with whitish
bands. Of P. coracina, which Frey gives as common, from Valais to
Stelvio, up to 7500' elevation, there are only 2. Of P. trepidaria there
are 3 ; Frey says it “ hardly varies at all,” but these are interesting as
being a good deal darker than any of his. Of P. alpinata ( horridaria ),
which is common up to the same limit as its congeners, there are 8,
including one 5 . But the longest series (12) is in the handsome,
though not particularly variable, P. quadrifaria, a widely distributed
but local species, from 4500' to far above 7000', Frey. Cleoyene. —
Another characteristically alpine species, C. lutearia, represented (from

60

this locality) by males only (6). Minoa murinata, 2, both belonging to
the pale aberration cineraria, Stgr. Tanaijra ( Odezia ) atrata, 1. The
“ Larentiidae ” of Guenee are fairly well represented, there are 15 species
of Staudinger’s great genus Cidaria, and apparently 5 of Eupithecia,
9 of the 15 Cidarias, namely aptata, turbata, salicata, caesiata, intidaria,
nobiliaria, ineultaria, minorata and adaequata, are principally mountain
species, most of them falling in Guenee’s typical genus Larentia. Not
many of the specimens call for individual mention. Of Cidaria (Thera)
variata there is only one example, belonging to the type form (which
we do not seem to get in England), the central band rather broader
than usual. The 3 C. salicata appear to approach var. rujicinctaria,
Guenee. The 2 C. spadicearia are both interesting, one on account of
the very striated central band, the other on account of the singular,
and probably almost unique accentuation of a submarginal dark band
on the hindwings; neither shows the increase of white colouring
which seems characteristic in many Swiss localities. The 3 C. caesiata
are fairly typical, and agree well with my Simplon form. The single
hastata is somewhat intermediate between the large typical forms and
the var. subhastata, though nearer to the former.

Notes on the Geometrids collected at Macugnaga.

There is only a small collection (44 specimens) of Geometrids from
this locality, but it will perhaps be interesting to compare them with
the I usio collection. About 21 species are represented, but I cannot
quite satisfy myself as to the determination of one worn Larentia
(? topliaceata). Acidalia. — There are 5 species of this genus, only 2
( fmnata and contvjuaria) being identical with Fusio species, the other
4 not characteristically alpine. Grnophos. — Three species, each
represented by a single specimen, and each also represented from
Fusio. Halia bnmneata 3, 3 2 , showing the usual strong sexual
dimorphism. This species is not represented from Fusio. Cleoyene
lutearia 6, including two 2 s. Does the 2 emerge later than the 3 '?
In any case, as with most Fidoniad species, she is probably much
more sluggish. Psodos trepidaria 4, smaller (2 of them considerably
smaller) than the 3 from Fusio ; they are also a little brighter than
those, 2 or 3 of them being prettily marked with some bright yellowish
scales. Cidaria — 8 species, 3 of which ( intidaria , hastata and adaequata )
occur also at Fusio. The one hastata has more white on it (central
band broken up, white band on hindwings broadened) than the one
from Fusio.

The Pyrales presented several species in great force such as Scapula
aerealis at all localities, aenealis, rhododendralis and austriacalis at Fusio.
Botys alpinalis (ulitjinosalis /) was less abundant but widely spread,
terrealis, sophialis, Stcnia punctalis, Catastia manjinea (common) , I ’ i/rausta
uctumaculata, cingulalis, aurata, nvjrata, were all met with, Catharia
pyrenaealis was met with as larvae, pupae, and imagines, and afforded a
very interesting glimpse of its life-history and of the curious structure
of the pupa*.

Hercyna alpestralis was abundant everywhere at higher levels, and
phrij/jialis very frequent, schrankiana and aethiopella also occurred.
Crambids included Crambus conchellus, pinellus, pyramidellus , ericellus ,

> adiellus, furcatellus, perlellus, fascelinellus, pratellus, dumetellus. Several

* Details sinoe published Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. 86, p. 76.

61

Scopariae, of which murana and crataegella were most common, of
Phycids only Phycis ornatella, betulae, fusca, melanella and elutella
were taken. At Macugnaga Sesia ichneumoniformis, conopiformis and
bibionifonnis (?) were met with on the wing.

Besides the Noctuids alluded to cymbalariae, 0., was taken on several
occasions, but always singly, Agrotis ocellina, alpestris and corticea
were frequent on flowers. Noctua dentina, proximo, Xylophasia latentia,
Cncullia aster is, Hecatera chrysozona and others were found at rest on
rocks. Abrostola tripartita , Dianthoecia capsophila, A. euphorbiae, and
others occurred. M. bombyliformix was frequent, and Syntotnis phegea at
times abundant. Nemeophila plantagims was rarely common, a black
form was met with. Odd specimens of Notodonta camelina, Miana
strirjilis, Gnophria rubricollis, and Z . bidentalis were taken.

Of Tortrices Sdaphila penziana varied between bellana and coign -
hounana without reaching the whiteness of the. one or the suffusion of
the other. P. bipunctana wffs frequently common, though not so
abundant as in Norway. S. alpicolana was rare, it is a very pleasing
species. Aphelia arymtana was common as usual and in early July in
fine condition.

The remaining Tortricids and Tineids presented no species of note
that I have identified. Mr. Barrett has taken some specimens for
further investigation. I am indebted to Mr. Turner for comparing
some of the species for me.

62

THE FAUNA OF THE LONDON DISTRICT.

LEPIDOPTERA.

Compiled by Dr. F. J. BUCKELL, M.B.; Edited, with the additions subsequent to
1893, by LOUIS B. PROUT, F.E.S.

(' Continued from Transactions, Part IX., 1899.)

In presenting the third instalment of the London Lepidoptera list
to subscribers and readers, it is again my pleasant duty to thank old
friends for their continued interest and help, and also several new
contributors for valuable supplementary records. I have also used
Bonhote and Rothschild’s “ Harrow Butterflies and Moths,” incor¬
porating records from this source, wherever it was not distinctly
indicated that the captures were outside our area ; Harrow, it will be
remembered, is one of our district boundaries.

The following fresh abbreviations have to be explained :

B. & R. = Bonhote and Rothschild, “ Harrow Butterflies and
Moths,” 2 vols., Harrow School Scientific Society’s
Memoirs 1895, 1897.

E.M.M. = Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine.

Js. = Russell E. James. North London District.

Mh. = J. P. Mutch. Hornsey Rise, Highgate, &c.

R. =R. W. Robbins. Walthamstow district.

Sw. =V. Eric Shaw. Finchley, Mill Hill, &c.

Material is accumulating for the supplement which has already
been promised, and it is hoped that this may be published in Part XI
of our Transactions ; may I urge entomologists working the London
district to provide me with all available information for this during
the year 1900, so that the supplement may be as complete as possible?
Communications respecting the Micro-Lepidoptera of the district are
also greatly needed ; very few lists of these have yet been received.

Louis B. Prout.

London, December 14th, 1900.

370. — Ennomos fuscantaria, Haw. I. Clapton (R.), Woodford (Ent.,
xix., 67); Stratford and Ilford (Mu.). II. Scarce (F.); Eltham,
occasionally at lamps (Jo.) ; Dulwich (E.R., ii., 110, W.). III.
Richmond, at light (A.); Wimbledon (Taylor). IV. Hanwell, a
few (Ba.) ; Highgate, at light (Mh.) ; 16 at light in 1898 (L.) ;
Crouch End and Highgate, c. 1899 and 1900, not seen before
(Js.).

871. — E. erosaria, Bork. I. S. Hackney (Se.). II. Scarce (F.) ;
Eltham, occasionally at lamps (Jo.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19) ;
Black heath (T.). III. Barnes (Ta.). IV. Highgate (Bu., So.).
372. — E. quercinaria, Hfn. General throughout the suburbs. Hyde
Park, St. James’ Park, and Kensington Gardens arc well known

68

localities, and some very interesting varieties have been bred from
larvae there collected.

373. — Cnlotois pennaria, L. Common in districts I., II., and IV.; for

district III. I have, curiously, only one record, Chiswick (Si.) ;
this doubtless requires to be considerably supplemented.

374. — Pliitjalia pedaria, Fb. Generally common, though avoiding the

central parts; Tooting, “rather rare” (Bell, Bell — R.); Chiswick,

I. on plum, sallow, &c. (Si.) ; Finchley, Mill Hill and Highgate,
“ rather scarce ” (Js.).

375. — Apocheima Jmpidaria, Fb. I. Hale End" (Ss.) [common some

years at Chingford, just outside our district boundary — L.B.P.] .

II. Scarce (F.). III. Richmond Park (Ba., Sd., P.).

376. — Lycia hirtaria, Cl. Records show this essentially London species

to be quite generally distributed. Much more abundant certain
years than at other times. “ Absolutely swarming in a small
garden at W. Hampstead in 1896 ” (C.) ; Finsbury Circus, c.
(Js.).

377. — Pachys strataria, Hfn. II. Scarce (F.) ; Eltham, occasionally

(Jo.) ; Forest Hill, on fences (E.R., ii., 69). III. Kingston
Vale, on a fence" (Ent., xxii., 151) ; Richmond Park, $ on oak
trunk 15/4/99" (Si.); Coombe Wood (Bu.). IV. Highgate (So.,
Mh., Js.) ; Muswell Hill (So.) ; Ealing (Fe.).

378. — P. betularia, L. Common throughout. It may not be out of

place here to urge London entomologists to co-operate with Mr.
W. Bateson and the “Evolution Committee of the Royal Society ”
by gathering accurate statistics of the percentage of pale and
dark forms. Ab. doubled ay aria, Mill., is already recorded for
Stamford Hill (Ba.) ; Forest Gate (Ent., xxx., 200) ; Stratford
(Mu.) ; Dulwich (Ent., xxxii., 237) ; Hornsey Rise (Mh.) ; and
Highgate — 2 at light (L.). Concerning the colour- variation of
the larva, Mr. Sich records “green examples on willow and
young shoots of apple, brown ones on birch and elm.”

379. — Synopsia abruptaria, Thnb. Another very generally distri¬

buted London species. So far as I have been able to ascertain
London has practically the monopoly of the very interesting dark
aberrations ; in addition to the recent records for Holloway
(E.R., x., 121, 122, 171, xi., 269), I can speak positively of
their occurrence from time to time at Hackney, Dalston, Hornsey
Rise, Crouch End, one A , nearly black, June, 1899 (Js.), &c. I
have been given to understand that they are much less frequent
in the southern than in the northern suburbs, but it is much to
be desired that more detailed statistics should be provided.
Reference to the articles in the “ Ent. Record” just alluded to,
will show that members of the “ City of London Entomological
Society ” have taken the most prominent partin working out
and naming these forms, and it is to be hoped that they will not
allow their interest in them to abate.

380. — Cymatophora repandata, L. I. Hale End, n.r., sometimes at

sugar (N., P.); Hagger Lane Forest (Bu., Cl.); Isle of Dogs, n.c.
(Wy.). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon (H.) ; Brockley (E.R., i., 350) ;
Dulwich (W.). III. Wimbledon Common (Bu., P.). IV. N.
London (Sd.) ; Southgate (Ba.) ; Highgate, 1. (Ent., xxv., 65) ;
Hampstead, l.c. (Js., Mh.) ; Finchley (Bu.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

64

381. — C. fjemmaria, Brahm (iritis -gladb achii, Gladb.,Lang, nom. vetus-

tius). Common everywhere, chiefly (if not indeed exclusively)
in the darkened ah. perfmnaria, Newm. Partial second brood
October, 1893 (Js.).

382. — C. roboraria, Fb. III. Richmond Park (K.).

383. — C. consortaria, Fb. II. Eltham (Jo.). III. Richmond Park

(K.) ; Coombe Wood, c. (K.).

384. — Ectropis consonaria, Hb. II. Croydon (Cl.).

385. — E. crepuscularia, Hb. (biundularia, Esp., 40, 3, nee Vill.). I.

Hagger Lane Forest, n.r. (Be., Ta., P.) ; Hale End, c. (J., Ss.,
Tr.). II. n.c. (F.) ; Forest Hill- (E.R., ii., 69) ; Croydon (Cl.);
Shooters’s Hill Woods (T.) III. Wimbledon Common (Bu.).
IV. Highgate (So.). Single-brooded, in May and June, appears
in April in abnormally forward seasons only. Ab. delamerensis,
White, not recorded in the district.

386. — E. bistortata, Goeze ( biundularia , P>kh., abietaria, Haw.). II.

Dulwich (E.R., ii., 140, W.); Croydon (Cl.). Appears in March
and April, and a partial second brood in July.

387. — E. extersaria, Hb. ( luridata , Bkh., nec Hfn.). II. Eltham (Jo.) ;

Croydon (Cl.). III. Richmond Park (A.) ; Coombe Wood (K.).
IV. Hampstead Heath- (So.).

388. — E. punctularia, Hb. II. c. (F.) ; Croydon (Cl.) III. Wimble¬

don Common- (Bu.) ; Coombe Wood (K.) ; Richmond Park, on
palings, 2/6/95- (Si.).

389. — Sciadion obscuraria, Hb. II. Croydon (Cl.). [Probably outside

our district boundaries. — L.B.P.] .

390. — Pseudoterpna pruinata, Hfn. I. Wanstead, 1., n.r. (P.) ; Wood¬

ford, at light (Bishop). II. n.r. (F.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi.,
233) ; Shirley, frequent (Sh.). III. Tooting, scarce (Bell — C. ;
Bell — R.) ; Wimbledon Common (I)., Ta.) ; Barnes (Ta.), 1. on
broom (Si.). IV. Hampstead Heath- (So.).

391. — Terpne papilionaria, L. I. Woodford, at light- (Ent., xix., 67);

Hagger Lane Forest (B. B. Thompson). II. n.r. (F.) ; Eltham,
among alder, n.r. (Jo.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19) ; Croydon
(H.) ; Shirley, c. (Sh.). III. Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii.,
151, Ta.) ; Coombe Wood (K.). IV. Hampstead Heath (So.) ;
Highgate (Ent., xix., 65, Mh., So.).

392. — Comibaena pustulata, Hfn. Widely distributed, sometimes

common ; odd specimens have been taken at Ladbroke Square
Ent., xx., 200) and Brondesbury (E.R*, ix., 297). Lark’s Wood
at Hale End, Wimbledon Common, and the Highgate Woods
are well-known localities.

393. — Iodis chrysoprasaria, Esp. ( vernaria , SchifL). II. n.r. (F.) ;

Eltham (Jo.) ; Croydon, c. (Sh., CL). III. Richmond, at light
(A.) ; Coombe Wood (K.). Mr. W. J. Kaye records a straggler at
light at Worcester Park, just outside our boundary (E.R., xii.,
313). IV. Harrow (B. & R.)

394. — I. lactearia, L. Generally distributed throughout the more

rural parts.

395. — Hemithea aestivaria Hb. (strigata, Mull.). The same may be

said of this species, which indeed is sometimes extremely
abundant.

396. — Cyclophora porata, L. I. Hale End, n.c. (J., N.). II. n.r.

65

(F.) ; Dulwich (W.). III. Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii.,
151). IV. Ealing (Fe).

397. — C. punctaria, L. I. Hale End, n.c. (J., N., P.) ; Woodford, at
light - (Ent., xix., 67). II. Scarce (F.) ; Shirley, frequent
(Sh.) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Grove Park, 4/7/97* (C.). III. Wimble¬
don Common (Ent., xxii., 151, Ta.) ; Richmond Park 2/6/98*
(Si.). IV. Ealing (Fe.) ; Highgate Woods (So.)

998. — C. linearia, Hb. IV. Ealing (Fe.).

399. — C. annulata, Schulze. II. Croydon (H., Cl.).

100. — C. orbicularia, Hb. II. Croydon (Cl.).

401. — C. pendularia, Cl. II. c. (F.) ; Croydon (CL). III. Wimble¬

don, 1. (P.). IV. Ealing (Fe.).

402. — Asthma luteata, Schiff. I. Hale End, n.r. (J., N., Ss., &c.) ;

Chingford (Be.). II. n.c. (F.) ; Croydon, r. (Sh.) ; Lee, 8/7/98*
(C., Ent., xxxii., 40). IV. Hendon (So.) ; Mill Hill, r. (Js.).

403. — A. candidata, Schiff. Generally common except in the more

central parts.

404. — A. testaceata, Don. ( sylvata , Hb.). II. Croydon (H.).

405. — Euchocca obliterata, Hfn. II. Abundant (F.) ; Eltham, c.

(Jo.). IV. Harrow (B. & R.).

406. — Ptychopoda* dimidiata, Hfn. Generally distributed, including

Clapton (N.).

407. — P. bisetata, Hfn. Similar distribution to the preceding, i.e.,

generally in the more rural parts, not recorded from Clapton.

408. — P. trigeminata, Haw. II. Occasionally (F.) ; Eltham, r. (Jo.) ;

Forest Hill (E.R., ii., 69 ; Dulwich (E.R., ii . , 140) ; Bromley
(Ent., xvi., 19). [ C . rusticata vide No. 414] .

409. — P. herbariata, Fb. Very occasionally in London ; the only

recent record which I have found is that for Southampton Row*
(E.R., x., 228).

410. — P. fusco-venosa, Goeze ( dilutaria , Stgr. Cat. = inter jectaria, Gn.)

I. Clapton Marshes (P.) ; Hale End, abundant (P.) ; Woodford,
at light (Ent., xix., 67). II. Abundant (F.) ; Forest Hill (E.R.,
ii., 69) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Croydon (Sh.) , Westcombe Park,
Blackheath (T.). III. Hammersmith (Bi.) ; Chiswick, c. (Si.).
IV. Hanwell, c. (Ba.) ; Southall* (Ba.) ; Highgate (So.).

411. — P. virgidaria, Hb. Abundant, common even within the four-

mile radius. “ Comes to sugar ” (Si.).

[L. margine punctata, Goeze, vide No. 415.]

412. — P. straminata, Tr. II. Scarce (F.) ; Bromley (Ent., xviii.,

20) ; Shirley, r. (Sh.). IV. Highgate (So.).

413. — P. subsericeata, Haw. II. Scarce (F.) ; Shirley, r. (Sh.). IV.

Highgate (So.).

414. — Cosmorhoe + rusticata, Hb. IV. Hampstead Heath* (Ent.,

(xxiii., 261).

* The old genus Acidalia (nom. bis lectum) is greatly in need of revision, but
the present is not the occasion ; I therefore follow the grouping of Herrich-Schaeffer
and Meyrick, which is at least in part supported by larval characters. The name
Idaea, Tr., is preoccupied (Idea, Fb., in III. Mag., vi.), while the type of Eois is
russearia, Hb., Ztr.

t H.-S. and Meyr. are at variance as to the position of this species; I pro¬
visionally retain it in Cosmorhoe, Hb., Stph.; if it be congeneric with dimidiata,
&c., the name Cosmorhoe will supplant Ptychopoda.

66

415. — Leptomeris* mar pimp inict at a, Goeze. II. Eltham, at lamps

(Jo.) ; Westcombe Park (T.).

416. — L. Jios-lactata, Haw. ( rernutaria , Hb., in error). I. Hale End,

c. (N., P., &c.) ; Hagger Lane Forest (Bu., C1.,B1.). II. Abun¬
dant (F.) ; Dulwich (E.R., ii., 140, W.). III. Wimbledon
Common (Bu.). IV. Highgate Woods (So.) ; Finchley:;: (Bu.) ;
Mill Hill, c. (Js.) ; Southgate* (Ba.) ; Harrow (B. & R.)

417. — L. imitaria, Hb. I. Hale End, n.c. (J., N., P.) ; Chingford

(Be.) ; Woodford at light (Bishop). II. n.c. (F.). III.
Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151). IV. Twyford (D.) ;
Hanwell, 1898* (Ba.) ; Hampstead, Highgate and Hendon (So.) ;
Crouch End, 1897* (Js.).

418. — L. aversata, L. Common nearly everywhere, including Islington

(Bu.) ; Ladbroke Square (Ent., xx., 200) ; &c.

419. — L. inornata, Haw. I. Hale End (P., Ba.). II. n.c. (F.). III.

Richmond, a few (A.). IV. Highgate (So.).

420. — L. ( Ania ) emarginata, L. I. Hale End, at sugar* (N.). II.

Sometimes common (F.) ; Grove Park, July 1893 (C.) ; Plum-
stead (Cl.). III. Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151); Ham
Common (A.). IV. Southall, at light (Ba.) ; Hanwell, 26/7/98*
(Ba.) ; Hampstead, Highgate and Hendon (So.).

421. — Erastna amata, L. ( amataria , L.). I. Clapton (Bt.) ; Hale

End, c. (J., N., Ss., &c.) ; Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67).

II. c. (F.) ; Grove Park (Ent., xxxii., 40) ; Dulwich (W.) ;
Forest Hill (E.R., ii., 69). III. Wimbledon Common (Ent.,
xxii., 151) ; Petersham, at light (A.). IV. Twyford (D.) ;
Southall (Ba.) ; Hanwell (Ba.) ; Ealing (Fe.) ; Willesden (Bu.) ;
Finchley (Sw., Js.) ; Hendon (So.) ; Highgate, at light, formerly
(Mh., So.).

422. — Deilinia pusaria, L. Generally common, except in central

London. Clapton, 17/6/00 (J. E. Gardner).

423. — D. exanthemata, Scop. Nearly as common as the preceding

species.

424. — Bapta temerata, Hb. I. Hale End (J., N., Ss.). II. Croydon

(H.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19) ; Shirley (Ta.). IV. Ealing
(Fe.) ; Highgate Woods (So.) ; Hampstead Heath, r. (Js.).

425. — Macaria alternaria, Hb. III. Coombe Wood (Ent., xxvi., 62).

426. — M. notata, L. II. Sometimes common (F.) ; Croydon (Cl.) ;

Shirley, c. (Sh.). III. Coombe Wood (Ent., xxvi., 62).

427. — M. liturata, Cl. II. Sometimes common (F.) ; Croydon (Cl.).

III. Coombe Wood (Ent., xxvi., 62); Chiswick* at sugar (Ent.,
xxvi., 301) ; Hammersmith* (Ent., xxvi., 277). IV. Harrow
(D.).

428. — Itame vauaria, L. Common wherever the food-plant is grown.

429. — Chiasmia clathrata, L. I. Woodford, at light* (Ent., xix., 67);

Ilford (Mu.). II. n.c. (F.) ; Croydon, frequent (Sh., H.) ;
Shirley (W.). IV. Harrow (B. & R.).

430. — Lozogramma t petraria, Hb. Common in all suitable places.

* Has page-priority over Arrhostia, Hb., H.-S., Hein., Gppbg., Br. Mus. Coll. ;
but need Mr. Meyrick have supplanted the better-known name?

f In order to preserve this monotypical genus, I fix arenacearia, Hb., 114, as
type of Lithina, Hb., Verz., p. 338 ; Lithina thus supplants Eubolia, Stgr. Cat.;
Duponchel’s type of his Eubolia is limitata, Scop.

67

431. — Anagoga pulveraria, L. II. r. (F.). IV. Highgate Wood
(So.)'.

482. — Psednothrix belgiaria, Hb. II. Shirley, frequent (W.). [Dr.
Buckell adds a query to the word “ frequent,” and I believe Mr.
Wood himself has somewhere written that the species has now
become scarce here. — L.B.P.] .

433. — Ematurga atomaria, L. I. Forest Gate (M.). II. Abundant

(F.) ; Shirley (J., Ta., &c.) ; Croydon (H.) ; Abbey Wood (W.).
III. Wimbledon Common (D.). IV. Ealing (Fe.).

434. — Chleuastes piniaria, L. I. Lothbury:,: (Ent., xx., 211) ; Stam¬

ford Hill, 1884* (Js.) ; Stratford (Mu.). II. Not scarce (F.) ;
Croydon (H.) ; Shirley, c. (Sh., W., &c.). IV. Ealing (Fe.) ;
Highgate, at light, 1899 (Js.), $ at light, 1900 (L.).

435. — Perconia strigillaria, Hb. II. Scarce (F.) ; Shirley, frequent

(Sh.). III. Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151, Bu.).

436. — Spilote grossidariata, L. Common everywhere.

437. — S. sylvata , Scop. I. Epping Forest, near Walthamstow,

12/6/93* (Oldham). II. Shirley (Sh.). [“ Formerly at Abbey

Wood” (F.)] IV. Shepherd’s Bush* (Ent., xxxii., 259);
Barnet*, in 1881 (Bu.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

438. — Ligdia adustata, Schiff. I. Clapton, scarce (Js.) ; Chingford

(Be.) ; Hale End, c. (J.) ; Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67) ;
Ilford (Mu.). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon, general (Sh., Cl.) ;
Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19). III. Chiswick (Si.). IV. Southall,
two in 1887 (Ba.) ; Hampstead Heath (Ent., xxv., 133) ;
Harrow (B. & R.).

439. — Lomaspilis marqinata, L. I. Hale End, a few (Ss.) ; Woodford,

at light (Ent., xix., 67) ; Wanstead (Cl.). II. Abundant (F.) ;
Croydon (H., Cl.) ; Forest Hill (E.R., ii., 69) ; Dulwich (W.).
III. Wimbledon Common (D., Ta., &c.) ; Chiswick, 1. on
Lombardy poplar (Ent., xxv., 133). IV. Hanwell, c. (Ba.) ;
Ealing, abundant (Ent., xxv., 132) ; Harrow (B. & R.) ; Hamp¬
stead (Bu.) ; Highgate, at light (Mh.) ; Highgate Woods (So.,
Hollis) ; Finchley (Bu.).

440. — Pachycnemia ldppocastanaria, Hb. II. Addington Hills (Ent.,

xvi., 135) ; Shirley, c. (Sh., Bu.).

441. — Erannis ( Theria ) rupicapraria, Hb. I. Tottenham (Be.) ; Ching¬

ford (Be.) ; Hale End (Tr.) ; Wood St.* (Ba.). II. Abundant
(F.); Brockley (E.R., i., 350); Sydenham (E.R., iii., 292).
III. Richmond Park, least common of genus (A.) ; Chiswick,
not often taken (Si.). IV. Twyford (D.) ; Hanwell (Ba.) ;
Harrow (Ent., xvi., 266) ; Hampstead (Mb., So.) ; Mill Hill, r.
(Js.) ; Finchley, Feb., 1899 (Sw.) ; Highgate (So.) ; Muswell
Hill, 1. (Bu.) ; N. London (Sd.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

442. — Erannis leucophaearia, Schift. In all suitable localities through¬

out the district, especially common at Hale End, Richmond
Park, &c.

448. — E. aurantiaria, Esp. Also very general, though our list ot
localities is not quite so long as for the preceding species. “ Not
common ” at Croydon (Sh.), but is certainly plentiful at Vest
Wickham.

444. — E. marginaria, Fb. Common everywhere except in the heart
of the city ; has been recorded for Clapton, Stratford, Earl s

68

Court, Kilburn, &c. London specimens are generally darker
than the type, though they very rarely reach ab. fuscata.

445. —/?. defoliaria, Cl. Common everywhere in the suburbs, includ-

ing Clapton, Dalston, Tooting (common), &c.

446. Alsophila aesculana, Schifit. Common everywhere excepting the
central parts.

447. Operophthera brumata , L. Generally abundant ; occasionally as
near the City as Islington (Bu.) and Dalston (P.).

448. 0. boreata, Hb. I. Tottenham (Be.). [The determination of

the specimen on which this record rests is, in my opinion, open
to question.— L.B.P.] II. Abundant (F.) ; Shirley, c. Sh.) ;

Brockley (E.R., i., 350). III. Richmond Park (A.).

449. Epimta dilutata, Bork. Generally common, though Mr. Carr
says “ not common ” for Lee and Shooter’s Hill, and Mr. Sich
“occasionally for Chiswick. The vast majority of London
examples belong to ab. obscurata, Stgr.

450. — Malenydris didymata , L. I. Hale End, c. (J., N., &c.) ; Hagger

Lane I orest (P.) ; Woodford (Ent., xix., 68) ; Hackney Marshes
(Cl.) ; Forest Gate (M.). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon (H.) ; Brockley*
(E.R., i., 350). III. Tooting, fairly common (Bell). IV.
Common everywhere (So., Bu.).

451. — M. wultistnyana, Haw. II. Abundant (F.) ; Shirley, c. (Sh.).

III. \\ imbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151, D., Ta.) ; Richmond
Park (Si.) ; Tooting, fairly common (Bell). IV. Hampstead
Heath (Mh., Ba., &c.).

452. — Amoebe pectinataria, Enoch. I. Hale End, n.c. (J., Ss.) ;

Hagger Lane Forest, plentiful (Bu., Cl.). II. c. (F.) ; Dulwich
(E.R., ii. , 140) ; Shirley (W.). III. Wimbledon Common (D.,
Ta.) ; Hammersmith (Bi.). IV. Highgate Woods (Mh.) ;
Harrow (B. & R.). '

453. — Perizoma alchemillata, L. II. Eltham, r. (Jo.). IV. Hamp¬

stead Heath (Bu.) ; Highgate, at light (Mh., So.).

454. — P. niveata, Steph. ( albulata , Schiff.). II. Locally common

(F.) ; Grove Park (Jo.). IV. Willesden (E.R., ii., 291) ;
1 incbley and Mill Hill,, c. (Js.) ; Highgate, at light (Mh.).

455. — P. Jiavofasciata, Thnb. ( decolorata , Hb.). I. Hale End, c. (J.,

N., Ss.) ; Chingford (Be.) ; Woodford, at light* (Ent., xix., 67) ;
Ilford (Mu.). II. n.c. (F.) ; Eltham, c. (Jo.). IV. Iianwell,
3/6/99 -' (Ba.) ; Ealing (Ent., xxv., 182) ; Hendon (So.) ;
Finchley (Sd.).

456. — P. bifasciata, Haw. ( unifaseiata , Haw.). II. 1., c. (F.) ; Eltham,

at lamps (Jo.) ; West Norwood, 1. (E.R., i. , 165) ; Croydon,
locally common (Sh., Cl.).

457 . — Eupithecia* venenata, Fb. I. Clapton, 1/6/00* (J. E. Gardner).

II. r. (F.) ; Croydon, 1. and imago common (Sh.). IV. Ealing
(Fe.).

458. — E. linariata, Fb. II. 1., n.r. (F.) ; Eltham, 1., c. (Jo.) ;

Croydon, l.c. some years (Sh.) ; Bromley (Ent., xviii., 20) ;
Beckenham (Cl.).

* Eupithecia, Curt., is dated April 1st, 1825; Tephroclystis, Hb., Verz., p.323,
Meyr. is accepted by Professor Fernald as having been published after August
27th, 1825. It is with no small satisfaction that I therefore restore the better-
known name.

69

459- — E. pulchellata, Steph. II. Croydon (Cl.)

460. E. oblongata, Thnb. Common almost everywhere. L. on
flowers of marigold in garden (P.).

461. E. succentariata, L. II. r. (F.) ; Eltham, at lamps, r. (Jo.) ;
Croydon, r. (Sh.). III. Wimbledon Common, at light (Bu.).

462. — E. sub/ulvata, Haw. I. Hale End, 1.* (P.). II. Scarce (F.) ;

Eltham, at lamps, r. (Jo.) ; Croydon, c. (Sh.). III. Hammer¬
smith (Bi.). IV. Hanwell, 17/8/99* (Ba.) ; Hampstead (Ent.,
xxv., 180) ; Highgate (So., Mh.); Muswell Hill*(Bu.); Harrow,
r. (B. & R.). Messrs. Clark and Riches have this autumn (1900),
taken the larvie rather freely in their gardens at Crouch End
and Hornsey Rise, on tansy, &c. ; Mr. James reports the imago
“ common ” at Crouch End.

468. — E. cauchyata, Dup. (pernotata, Gn.). IV. Ealing (Fe.). [This
record is more than questionable, but as the name stands in Dr.
Fenton’s list I feel bound to quote it. — L.B.P.] .

464. — E. plumbeolata, Haw. II. n.c. (F.).

465. — E. isogrammaria, H.S. I. Dalston (P.); Stamford Hill, c. (Js.,

Ba.); Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon,
swarms among food-plant (Sh.) ; Forest Hill, 2 (E.R., ii.“ 60);
Westcombe Park (T.). IV. Crouch End, occasionally (Js.) ;
Highgate, 1900* (Js.).

466. — E. satyrata, Hb. IV. Highgate (Cl.).

467. — E. castiyata, Hb. I. Dalston (P.) ; Hale End, n. r. (N., P.) ;

Chingford (Be.). II. c. (F.) ; v.c. (E.R., i., 69, H.) ; Dulwich
(E.R., ii., 140, W.); Westcombe Park (T.). III. Wimbledon
Common (Bu.). IV. Common everywhere (So.) ; Hampstead
Heath (Bu.) ; Highgate (Mh.).

468. — E.fraxinata, Crewe. I. Stamford Hill (Ba.). II. n.r. (F.) ;

Eltham (Jo.) ; Plumstead (Cl.). IV. Highgate Wood, at rest*
(Mh.).

469. — E. pimpinellata , Hb. I. Walthamstow, 1. and imago (J.) ;

Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67). II. Croydon, locally
common (Sh.). IV. Hampstead Heath (So.).

470. — E. denotata, Hb. ( campanulata , H.-S.). II. Croydon (Cl.). [Is

there an error of determination here ? — L.B.P.] .

471. — E. indigata, Hb. II. n.c. (F.) ; Forest Hill, two (E.R., ii., 69).

472. — E. nanata, Hb. I. Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67). II. c.

(F.) ; Shirley, v.c. (Sh., Cl., &c.). IV. Hanwell, 1898* (Ba.) ;
Highgate (So.) ; Hampstead Heath, c. (So.).

473. — E. subnotata, Hb. Very generally, including Hackney Marshes

(Cl.); Isle of Dogs, c. (Wy.) ; Holloway and Islington (Bu.), &c.

474. — E. vulgata, Haw. Common everywhere, the melanic ah. subfus-

cata, Haw., very frequent.

475. — E. albipunctata, Haw. I. Coldfall Wood, 1.* (P.). II. n.c.

(F.); Croydon (Cl.). III. Wimbledon Common, 1. (P.); Chiswick,
formerly common on Heracleum sphondylium, perhaps also on
Angelica ; locality now destroyed (Si.). IV. Crouch End, c.
(Js.).

476. — E. expallidata, Gn. II. Croydon, r. (Sh.) ; Plumstead (Cl.).

477. — E. absinthiata. Cl. I. Stamford Hill (Ba.). II. c. (F.); Croy¬

don, c. (Sh.) ; Plumstead (Cl.). IV. Southgate (Ba.) ; Harrow

(B. & R.).

70

478. — E. goossensiata, Mab. ( minutata , Gn.). II. c. (F.) ; Shirley, c.

(F.). IV. Hampstead Heath, c. (So.) ; Highgate, at light
(Mh.).

479. E. assimilata, Gn. Generally common in gardens on red currant
and hop.

480. -L. lariciata, Frr. I. Hale End, a few (P., Ss.). II. Croydon

481. — E. abbreviate, Steph. I. Walthamstow, n.c. (J.) ; Hale End

(P.). II. n.c. (F.) ; Croydon, frequent (E.R., i., 70) ; Dulwich
(W.). IV. Highgate Woods (So.).

482. — E. dodoneata, Gn. II. Scarce, formerly abundant (F.); Eltham,

sparingly (Js.). IV. Hendon (So.).

483. E. exiguata , Hb. I. Ponder’s End (Bu.); Chingford (Be.); Hale
End. f.c. (N., P.). II. Scarce, formerly abundant (F.); Croydon,
c. (Sh.) ; Forest Hill, f.c. (E.R., ii.; 69). III. Barnes (Ta.) ;
Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151). IV. Hanwell (Ba.) ;
Hampstead (Ent., xxv., 183, Mh.) ; Highgate (So.) ; Muswell
Hill (Bu.) ; Southgate, two (Ba.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

484. — E. sobrinata, Hb. I. Stamford Hill (Ba.) ; Woodford, at light

(Ent., xix., 67). II. c. (F.) ; Eltham, at light (Jo.) ; Croydon,
c. (E.R., i., 70, Cl.) [probably outside our boundary.— L.B.P.] ;
Forest Hill (E.R., ii., 69); Dulwich (E.R., ii., 140). IV. High¬
gate (So.) ; Finsbury Park* (Ba.).

485. — Eucymatoge togata, Hb. I. Hale End* (P.). II. Lee* (F.).

486. Gymnoscelis pumilata, Hb. I. Walthamstow, c. (J., N.) ; Hale
End (P.). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon, c., 1. on furze (Sh.) ; Forest
Hill, 3 (E.R., ii., 69). III. Richmond Park (A.); Putney (Bu.).
IV. Ealing, abundant (Ent., xxv., 183) ; Muswell Hill (Bu.).

487. — Chloroclystis coronate, Hb. I. Tottenham* (P.). II. Not

uncommon (F.) ; Eltham, occasionally on fences (Jo.) ; Croy¬
don, r. (E.R., i 70) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Shirley (W.). III.
Chiswick (Ent., xix., 134) ; Richmond Park (A.). IV. Hamp¬
stead Heath (Ent., xxv., 188) ; Highgate Woods (So.) ; Mill
Hill, r. (Js.).

488. — C. rectangulata, Hb. Common everywhere where there are

apple trees. Sich and Prout note that the specimens are all
dark, sometimes deep black (ab. nigrosericeata, Haw.) ; probably
this is the case throughout the district.

489. — Lobophora * sexalata, Retz., Vill. II. Scarce (F.) ; Eltham,

occasionally (Jo.).

490. — L. halter ata, Hfn. II. c. (F.) ; Eltham, on aspen trunks, some¬

times v.c. (Jo.) ; Shirley, n.c. (Sh.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19).
III. Hounslow (E.R., i., 116). IV. Harrow (B. & R.).

491. — L. viretata, Hb. II. Occasionally at light (F.) ; Eltham, ditto

(Jo.). III. Petersham, at light (A.) ; Chiswick, on a wall* (Si.).

492. — Tv. carpinata, Bkh. II. n.c. (F.) ; Eltham, occasionally (Jo.) ;

Shirley, n.c. (Sh., Cl.).

493. — L. polycomwata, Hb. II. Croydon (Cl.). [?an escape. —

L.B.P.] .

494. — Thera jvniperata, L. III. Tooting, r. (Bell, Bell — R.). Abun¬

dant just outside district boundaries on the Purley Downs, &c.

* Lobophora, Curt., Aug. 1st, 1825 ; Tncliovteryx, Hb., Verz., p. 323, Meyr.,
post, Aug. 27th, 1825, sec. Fernald. J

71

495. — T. variata, Schiff. I. Stamford Hill, r. (Js.) ; Clapton

(Robbins) ; Hale End, n.c. (P.). II. c. (F., Cl., &c.) ;
Bostall Wood, melanic (E.R., ix., 330). III. Chiswick, at
sugar* (Si.). IV. Han well*, (Ba.) ; Southgate (Ba.) ; Hamp¬
stead (So.) ; Highgate (So., Mh.) ; Harrow (B. & R.) ; Crouch
End, r. (Js.) ; Finchley, 2 in 1899, 1 in 1900 (Sw.).

496. — T. firmata, Hb. II. Scarce (F.).

497. — Hydriomena ruberata, F. III. Wimbledon (Cl.).

498. — H. autumnalis, Strom ( trifasciata , Thnb., Bork.). I. Hale

End (P.) ; Wanstead (M.). II. n.r. (F.) ; Eltham, c. (Jo.) ;
Brockley* (E.R., i., 350) ; Croydon (P.). IV. Harrow (B.
& R.).

499. — H. furcata, Thnb. ( sordidata , Fb.). Generally common, except

in the more central parts. Crouch End, v.r., formerly c. (Js.).

500. — Mesoleuca * bicolorata, Hfn. I. Chingford (Be) ; Hale End,

abundant (N., P., &c.) ; Stratford (Mu.), II. c. (F.) ; Lee,
1897* (C.). III. Wimbledon Common (Bu.) ; Richmond Park
(A.) ; Barnes (Ta.) ; Hammersmith (Bi.) ; Chiswick, n.c. (Si.).
IV. Hendon, c. (So.) ; Finchley and Mill Hill, r. (Js.) ; South-
gate (Ba.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

501. — M. ocellata, L. Apparently very general in N.E. and S.E. ;

for S.W. our only records are Wimbledon (Da., Bu.) and Rich¬
mond (Si.) ; for N.W., Highgate and Hampstead (So.) ; Harrow
(B. & R.).

502. — M. albicillata, L. I. Hagger Lane Forest (Bu., &c.) ; Hale

End (Ss., P.) ; Woodford (P.). II. c. (F.) ; Eltham, n.r. (Jo.) ;
Croydon (Cl.); Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19). HI. Wimbledon
Common (A.). IV. Southall, 1/6/88* (Ba.) ; Southgate* (Ba.).
50S. —Melanthia procellata, Fb. II. n.c. (F.) ; Croydon, c. among
clematis (Sh., Cl.). IV. Harrow (B. &. R.).

504. — Rheumaptera hastata, L. II. Shooters Hill*, some years ago

(Jo.).

505 . — Xanthorhoe ( Epirrhoe ) tristata, L. II. Croydon (Cl.). [Acci¬

dental occurrence ? — L.B.P.]

506. — X. (Ku phyla) picata, Hb. II. Croydon (CL).

507. — X. ( Euphyia ) amnindata, Hb. ( unanyulata , Haw.). II. Croy¬

don (Cl.) Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19). III. Wimbledon Common
(D., Bu., &c.) ; Richmond Park (Bu.) ; Ham Common (A.).

508. — X. ( Epirrhoe ) rivata, Hb. I. Hale End'" (N.) ; Woodford, at

light (Ent., xix., 67). II. c. (F.) ; Croydon, c. (Cl., Sh.).
III. Wimbledon Common (D.) ; Chiswick (Ent., xix., 134).

509. — X. (A.) alternata, Mull, (sod at a, Bork.). Generally common

in the more rural parts.

510. — X. implicata, Vill. (montanata, Bork.). As the preceding.

511. — X. (Epirrhoe) cjaliata, Hb. II. Croydon (H.).

512. — A', fiuctuata, L. Common everywhere. The dark ab.

neapolisata, Mill., frequent, as also many other aberrations.

513. — Anticlea rubidata , Fb. I. Hale End, 26/6/00" (P.) ; Ilford

(Mu.). II. n.r. (F.) ; Eltham, c. (Jo.) ; Croydon, frequent (Sh.).

514. _ A. (Earophila) badiata, Hb. Generally common. Recorded

* Type, albicillata, L. ; I have retained the dissonant species bicolorata and

ocellata provisionally in this genus, because their exact position does not seem to
have yet been worked out.

72

from Green Park, Piccadilly, 27/5/98* (C.). Our only recorded
station in district III. is Wimbledon Common (D.).

515.— ,4. nii/rofasciaria, Goeze. II. n.c. (F.) ; Eltham,' occasionally
on palings (Jo.) ; Eden Park* (P.). III. Barnes (Ta.). IV.
Highgate Woods (So.) ; Hendon (So.) ; Mill Hill, r. (Js.) •
Harrow (B. & R.).

Ochyria designata, Hfn. Locally common throughout the
suburbs.

^—O-spadicearia, Schiff. (ferrugata, Auctt.). I. Hale End, n.c.
("•) ; Woodford, at light (Ent., xix.. 67) ; Ilford (Mu.). II.
Ahuncant (F.) ; Norwood (E.R., ii., 156) ; Sydenham (E.R., ii.,
164) ; Streatham (Fo.). III. Wimbledon Common (D., Ta.) •
Barnes (Ta.). IV. Ealing, abundant (Ent., xxv., 185); High-
r gate (So.) ; Mill Hill and Finchley, r. (Js., Sw.).

518. — O. ferrugata, L. ( unidentaria , Haw.). Apparently common

throughout, unless it be in district IV., where our only records
are: Highgate (So.); Winchmore Hill (Ba.); Harrow (B. & R )

519. — O. quadrifasciata, Cl. II. n.c. (F.). III. Richmond Park

(Bu.).

520. Camptogramma bilineata, L. Common everywhere.

521. — Percnoptilota fluviata, Hb. I. Woodford, at light* (Ent., xix.,

67). II. “Formerly not rare, now extinct ” (F., Jo.) ’ iv’
Highgate* (So.).

522. ( oenocalpe tersata, Hb. I. S. Hackney (Se.) [an escape 9] II

ioon(P r- (Jo-); Cr°J(1°n> c. (Cl., Sh.); Lee, at light,'
189J (C.) ; Westcombe Park, at light, 1900 (T.). IV. Ealing
(r e.).

523. ( . vittata, Bork. I. Clapton (Cl.) [obviously quite accidental
occurrence.— L.B.P.J II. Scarce, formerly common (F.). IV.
Hanwell at light, 22/8/98* (Ba.) ; Highgate* (So.).

524. — C. vitalbata, Hb. I. Woodford, at light* (Ent., xix.., 67). II.

n c. (F.); Eltham, r. (Js.); Croydon, c. (Cl., Sh.). IV. Highgate
(So.) ; Harrow (B. & R.). & °

525. Tripliosa dubitata, L. I. Dalston* (P.) ; S. Hackney (Se.) ;
Clapton* (Ss.); Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67). II. c. (F.);
Eltham, at lamps (Jo.) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi.,
233) ; Westcombe Park (T.) ; Shirley, c. at heather bloom (Sh.) ;
Streatham (l'o.). III. Barnes (Ta.) ; Hammersmith (Bi.).
IV. Very generally distributed (So.) ; Southall, a few (Ba.) •
Paddington (Ph.); Harrow (B. & R.).

526. — Calocalpe certata, Hb. I. Finsbury Park (N., Ba.); Tottenham

(Be.); Clapton (Ba., Ss.); Stratford (Mu.). II. c, (F.); Eltham.
at lamps (Jo.) ; Croydon, r. (Sh.). III. Wimbledon (Bu.) ;
Chiswick, occasionally (Si.). IV. Very generally distributed.

52f. C. umlulata, L. I. Ilford (Mu.). II. Occasionally (F.); Eltham,
r. (Jo.). IV. Hamilton Terrace, N.W.* (Ent.. xxxii., 237).

528. — Philereme vetulata, Schiff. II. Common, but very local (F.) ;

Chislehurst (Jo.) ; Croydon, c. among buckthorn (Sh.). ill!
Wimbledon Common (Ent., xxii., 151). IV. Hampstead 1
(Ent., xiii., 220).

529. — P. transversata, Hfn. ( rhamnata , Schiff.). I. Ilford (Mu.). II.

Common among buckthorn (Sh.). IV. Harrow (B. & R.).

530. — Chloroclysta siterata, Hfn. IV. Muswell Hill (Bu.).

531. — ( '. miata, L. II. Scarce (F.); Eltham, at lamps, rather common

(•To.). III. Chiswick (Ent.. xxv., 203). IV. Hampstead (Bu.);
Harrow (Ent., xxv., 203, B. & R.) ; Crouch End, 1893* (Js.).
[Euphyia picata, Hb. vide No. 506] .

532. — Cidaricr : cor y lata, Thnb. I. Hale End, c. (J., N., Ss., &c.) ;

Isle of Dogs, n.c. (Wy.). II. Scarce (F.) ; Shooter’s Hill
Wood (T.) ; Shirley, frequent (Sh.) ; Croydon (Cl.). IV. Mill
Hill, r. (Js.); Highgate Woods (So.).

533. — <'. tnmcata, Hfn. I. Hale End, c. (-J., Ba., P.) ; Hagger Lane

Forest (Bu., Cl.) ; Woodford, at light (Ent., xix., 67) ; Totten¬
ham (Be.) ; Ponders End (Bu.). II. n.r. (F.) ; Dulwich (W.).
IV. Hanwell (Bd.) ; Muswell Hill (Bu.) ; Crouch End, 1892*
(Js.) ; Highgate Woods (So.) ; Hampstead (Mb., So.) ; Harrow
(B. & R.).

534. — -C.immanata, Haw. I. Hagger Lane Forest (Bu., Cl.); Ponders

End (Bu.). II. n.r. (F.); Dulwich (W.); Shirley, c. at heather
bloom (Sh.). III. Scarce (Bell — M.). IV. Harrow (B. & R.) ;
Hampstead, at light (Mh.).

535. — C.fulrata, Forst. Common in most parts, excepting the more

central.

536. — Lampropteryx mfumata, Hb. II. Formerly common, now

extinct (F.). IV. Highgate Wood (So.); Hendon (So.); Harrow
(B. & R.).

537. — Eustroma silaceata, Hb. II. Occasionally (F.) ; Eltham,

occasionally (Jo.) ; Bromley (Ent., xviii., 20) ; Croydon (Cl.).
III. Chiswick* (Ent., xxv., 203).

538. — -Lyyris (?) prunata, L. IV. Harrow (B. & R.).

539. — L. testata, L. I. Tottenham, at light (Be.) ; Hagger Lane

Forest (Bu., Cl.) ; Hale End, c. (J.) ; Woodford, at light (Ent.,
xix., 68). II. Common but local (F.) ; Bromley (Ent., xviii.,
20) ; Shirley, c. at heather bloom (Sh.). III. Tooting, f.c.
(Bell, Bell — M.) ; Wimbledon Common (Ta., Si.) ; Chiswick*
(Ent., xxv., 204) ; Bedford Park (Ent., xxv., 204). IV. N.
London (Sd.) ; Hampstead Heath, c. (So., Mh.) ; Harrow (B. &
R.).

540. — L. pyraliata, Fb. (dotata, Stgr. Cat.). I. Chingford (Be.) ; Hale

End, c. (N., .J., P.). II. Scarce, formerly abundant (F.) ;
Croydon (Cl.) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Lee (C.); Grove Park (C.). III.
Bedford Park (Ent., xxv., 204). IV. Hanwell (Ba.) ; Ealing
(Fe.) ; Southall, common locally (Ba.) ; Willesden (Bu.) ;
Finchley (Bu., Sw.) ; Hendon, c. (So.) ; Highgate, at light
(Mh.) ; N. London (Sd.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

541. — L. asxociata, Bork. Generally distributed, and mostly common.

542. — Pelnrya comitata, L. Very generally distributed, including

Canonbury, Highbury, Holloway, &c. (Bu.) ; Stamford Hill, 1.
abundant (Js.) ; Hackney Marshes (Cl.) ; Isle of Dogs (Wy.) ;
Greenwich Marshes (T.). Mr. Bell’s list indicates it as “rare”
at Tooting.

* Dyxstroma, Hb. Verz., of which Hulst makes tnmcata the type, was probably
published in the same year (1825) as Cularia, Tr.; pending further enquiry, I retain
ttie more usual name.

74

543. — Plerocymia * clararia , Haw. (cervinata, Schiff., in error). II. n.r.

(F.) ; Bromley (Ent., xvi., 19) ; Croydon, l.c. on mallow (Sh.).

III. Wimbledon Common, at light (Ent., xxii., 151) ; Barnes
(Ta.) ; Chiswick, 1. on mallow (Ent., xxv., 204) ; Bedford Park
(Ent., xxv., 204). IV. Southgate (Ba.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

544. — P. chenopndiata, L. ( limitata , Scop.). II. Common, but local

(F.) ; S. London (Ent., xvii., 90) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Bromley
(Ent., xvi., 233) ; Croydon (H.). III. Tooting (Bell — R.).

IV. Southall (Ba.) ; Hanwell, c. (Ba.) ; Twyford (D.) ; Mill
Hill (Js.) ; Finchley (Sw., Js.) ; Highgate (So.) ; Hampstead
(So.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

545. — P. vmcronata, Scop, {plumb aria, Fab.). 1. Woodford, at light

(Ent., xix., 67). II. n.c. (F.) ; Dulwich (W.). III. Tooting,
c. (Bell, &c.) ; Wimbledon Common (D., Ta.). IV. Hampstead
Heath (So.) ; Harrow (B. & R.).

546. — P. bipunctaria, Schiff. II. Locally abundant (F.) ; Dulwich

(W.). IV. Ealing (Fe.).

547. — Anaitis plar/iata, L. II. c. (F.) ; Dulwich (W.) ; Bromley

(Ent., xviii., 20) ; Croydon, frequent (Sh., H.) ; Eden Park (P.).
IV. Southall (Ba.) ; Highgate Woods (So.) ; Crouch End,
1896* (Js.) ; Highgate, at light (Mh.).

548. — Eucestia spartiata, Herbst. I. Walthamstow, n.c. (J.) ; Snares-

brook (Bl.) ; Forest Gate (M.). II. Abundant (F.) ; Eltham, c.
(Jo.) ; Shirley (Sh.). IV. Hanwell, fairly plentiful (Ba.) ;
Hampstead Heath (So.) ; Muswell Hi lh;: (Bu.).

549. — E, rnfata, Fb. I. Snaresbrook (Bl., Bt., P., &c.) ; Forest

Gate (M.). II. n.r. (F.). III. Barnes Common (Ta., A., Si.,

&c.).

550. — Odezia at rata, L. I. Stamford Hill" (Ba.) ; Woodford, at light

(Ent., xix., 68). III. Wimbledon Common (D.). ; Richmond
Park (Bu.). IV. Southall, a few (Bu.) ; Willesden (E.R., ii . ,
291) ; Edgware (Sw.) ; Finchley, c. (Sw., Js.) ; Mill Hill,
common locally (Js., Sw.) ; Hendon Lane (Sd.) ; Highgate
(So.) ; Alexandra Park, N. side, netted among furze (Mh.) ;
Hampstead (So.) ; Brondesbury* (E.R., ix., 297) ; Southgate,
c. (Ba.) ; Harrow (B. k R.).

* In our National Collection this genus (under the name Ortholitha) is main¬
tained as distinct from Onychia, Hb. Verz. (i.e., Petroyhora, HI). Tent., type
maeniata, Sc.), but nearly all authors unite them.

'

®itn of gentium ©ntomolcutical
A !tatnval g) is torn gracietjr.

HIS SOCIETY was founded in 1858 under the title of the

JL “ Haggerston Entomological Society,” and has striven, for
nearly half a century, to diffuse the knowledge of Natural History,
particularly of Entomology. It has taken an active part in the
preservation of Epping Forest and other similar movements for the
public good, and also in the suitable housing of the famous “ Double¬
day Collection ” of Lepidoptera. Its own particular work includes
the reading of papers, discussions, and exhibitions, and a special
feature of recent years has been the compilation of a London Fauna
List, now being published in the Transactions.

The meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays in each
month, from 7.80 to 10 p.m., at the London Institution, Finsbury
Circus, E.C., which is easily accessible from all parts ; the Meeting-
room is exception ally comfortable and well lighted, and no effort is
spared to make the evenings pleasant and profitable. An annual
Summer Excursion is arranged by the Society, and occasional Con¬
versazioni. Visitors are welcomed to all the meetings.

There is a good library, containing, amongst other works, the
“ Zoologist,” “Entomologist,” “Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine,”
Ac., from their commencement, and also reference collections of
Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, to which it is hoped other Orders may be
added from time to time.

The entrance Fee is Two Shillings and Sixpence, and the Annual
Subscription Seven Shillings and Sixpence, payable in advance, both
being purposely kept low in order that all may avail themselves of the
benefits the Society offers. The Society therefore looks with con¬
fidence for the support of all who are interested in the study of
Natural History.

The year commences on the first Tuesday in December, but
intending members may join at any time.

Further information may be obtained from either of the Hon.
Secretaries. «

~ *-* *:•/.£''/** ‘r /'• •• • r*. .* ■■'.• /'•

s&&<.

s'^V'fN

S'