os ue

‘i

HP: We lenient lade! NAHE

f PUREE! ty 4 PPA Sea ea eee Hin vt he oats

ena an HA

H P

eshte

ate ti ;

: eat

Wyle s ‘ Hy (ah Mpeg tad e hitb fh |

Hai Vaya eae ng! bead t)

Sait Tau eatibes edb abe tae

\

oo

gene

3e

y BY y ae

nt

aie Ke

y

THE

ENTOMOLOGIST’ MONTHLY MAGAZINE:

CONDUCTED BY C. G. BARRETT, E.ES. R. McLACHLAN, F-.R.S. J. W. DOUGLAS, E.E.S. EK. SAUNDERS, F.LS.

W. W. FOWLER, M.A., F.L.S. H. T. STAINTON, F.BS.

NViOTE exe:

Observations, however minute and isolated, may, if careful and accurate, contribute usefully to the general advancement of science.

George Bentham.

eee pap

LONDON: GURNEY & JACKSON (Mr. Van Voorst’s SucceEssoxrs), 1, PATERNOSTER ROW.

1888-89.

oN waX

LONDON :

NAPIER, PRINTER, SEYMOUR STREET, EUSTON SQUARE.

MDCCCLXXXTIX.

ImseeTS PREFACE.

More than a quarter of a century has passed since (early in the spring of 1864) it was decided to establish the EyromMoLoGist’s Monruty Magazine.

The basis upon which it was established may be found in the Preface to Vol.i. In the first instance that it would be conducted without hope or desire of pecuniary gain on the part of its proprietors; and secondly, that it would be both popular and scientitic. The latter idea has, we venture to think, been fully realized; as to the former, we can only say that no balance is in hand, and that when the financial results of more than 25 years’ working can be adjusted, it is believed there will be no deficit.

It has been decided to commence a nominal SEconD SERIES. There will be no radical change in the constitution of the Magazine, other than by frequently increasing the number of pages and illustrations (without extra charge): endeavours will be con- stantly used to render it still more generally useful.

Vol. xxv has extended to a somewhat inconvenient bulk, necessitated by the resolve to commence each Vol. of the Second Series in January, and to end it in December. This has been repeatedly urged upon us.

The two Editors who took part at the inauguration of the Magazine in 1864, and who still remain on the staff, have no reason to regret the result of their endeavours to further, through its pages, the cause of Entomology during the period that has since elapsed. Those of the Editors who have joined at subsequent periods share this feeling.

The fact of a Magazine devoted to Entomology, conducted absolutely on non-commercial principles, existing for more than 25 years, is probably unique in the annals of Natural History journalism. ‘The Editors ask the present supporters to continue their aid, and to induce others to supplement it on the occasion of what will be practically a new departure, by their endeavours to further the sale of a journal which has been, and will continue to be, “a labour of love.”

lols Ah ae Two original Editors,

on behalf R. McLACHLAN, of their Colleagues.

1, PATERNOSTER Row, Lonpon, H.C. : November, 1889.

THE

af # dtlonth/y ,

oo am ME Y - VOLUME XXV. ot

COLEOPHORA FRISCHELLA, L. (= C. TRIFOLII, CURTIS), VERSUS C. MELILOTELLA, SCOTT.

BY EUSTACE R. BANKES, M.A., F.E.S.

For some time past I had been quite convinced that the records of the capture of Coleophora Frischella in Britain referred in reality to the species which had been more recently described as new (Entom. Weekly Intelligencer, viii, 108; Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., n. s. v, 408, pl. xvii, fig. 1), under the name of C. melilotella, and I had imagined that the true continental C. Frischella had never occurred with us; but, while trying to work out this idea, a new conviction has forced itself upon me, namely, that C. melilotella, Scott, is identical with the conti- nental C. Frischella, L., of which the name trifoliz, Curtis, is already recognised as a synonym.

The first specimens captured in Britain were taken fe Mr. J.C. Dale, at Charmouth, and the Isle of Portland, “on trefoil flowers,” on July 11th and 14th, 1831, and were described and figured by Curtis in his “ British Entomology,” folio 8391, under the name of Coleophora trifolii. Mr. C. W. Dale, of Glanville’s Wootton, still has in his collection the specimens captured by his father, and, on examining these, we found them to be absolutely identical with the insect now known as C. melilotella, which occurs plentifully amongst its food- plant, Melilotus officinalis, both at Charmouth and Portland. A third locality, viz., the Isle of Wight, is given in Stainton’s “ Manual,” and there also C. melilotella and its food-plant occur freely.

The localities given by Stephens in his “ Illustrations,’ Haust. iv, p. 284 (published in 1834), are Ripley and Hertford, and his words

re: “Taken rather plentifully on the flowers of the trefoil in July, 1827, at Ripley ; I have since captured it at Hertford.”

Perhaps, to some people, the words “ on the flowers of the trefoil,” used by both Dale and Stephens, may at first sight present a difficulty, because C. melilotella always frequents the flowers of the melilot, which, in recent botanical works, is not classed as a trefoil. But in the older works we find that the melilot is invariably placed in the genus Trifolium, as the following extracts will show :—

A Jung, 1888.

2, : : ; [June,

Linneus, in the “Systema Nature,’ Holmiz 1767, tom ii, 501, gives as his classification :

Trifolium. Ist Division. Meliloti leguminibus nudis polyspermis. 4. (i. e., 4th species) Melilotus officinalis.

Sir James Henry Smith also, in “The English Flora,” 2nd edition, vol. iii, p. 297 (published 1829), has

366. Trifolium. Trefoil, clover, and melilot. 1. T. officinale. Common melilot.

T. officinale, F\. Br., 781; Engl. Bot., v. 19, t. 1840; Willd., v. 3, 1355 ; Hook. Scot., 217.

T. melilotus-officinalis, Linn., Sp. Pl.,1078; Huds., 323; Mart., Rust., t. 72; Fl. Dan., t. 934; Sincl., ed. 2,393; Bull. Fy., t. 255.

T. odoratum, seu Melilotus fruticosa lutea vulgaris vel officinarum, Moris., v. 2, 161, sect. 2, t. 16, f. 2.

T. odoratum, sive Melilotus, Dod. pempt., 567, f.

Melilotus vulgaris, Raii syn., 331.

And, again, Curtis himself, in his “ British Entomology,” figures the melilot on the plate of one of the Hymenoptera, pl. 261, and says of it, “The plant is Trifo- lium (Melilotus) officinale (Melilot trefoil).”’

It is quite clear then that Melilotus officinalis was formerly con- sidered to be a Trifolium, and though the term “ trefoil” is certainly rather vague, it could, half a century ago, be applied with strict accuracy to the meli/ot.

As I had been told in several quarters that Mr. F. Bond had taken the true C. Frischella in the Isle of Wight, and possessed cases of the larva, I wrote to him on the subject, and his reply was: “I regret very much that I cannot give you any satisfactory account of C. Frischella; I never took the insect myself, but the specimens I have were taken in the Isle of Wight by Peter Bouchard, who was then employed by Mr. E. Shepherd, and were given me by Mr. Shepherd with two cases. I understood at the time that the larve were found upon clover, or some kind of trefoil. The cases are very different from those of C. melilotella, and are much more like those of C. con- spicuella, but rather longer and more curved. I think my specimens were taken about 25 years ago near Freshwater.”

These cases in Mr. Bond’s collection are also referred to in Ent. Ann., 1861, p. 88 (quoted in Ent. Mo. Mag., xxii, 97), as “long, curved, and black, being formed of silk: it resembles most the case of the larva of OC. conspicuella ;” whereas, “ the case of the larva of melilotella is made of the seed-husk of the Melilotus officinalis; at first only a single seed is used, then two are clumsily attached together, ultimately they are so blended as to form a symmetrical cylindrical case.”

1888. ] 3

For a time I was certainly puzzled by the very marked differences, as given above, in the shape and composition of the cases of the two Species ; but on hearing from Mr. Bond that he could give no really satisfactory account of the cases in his collection, which, it must be remembered, are the only so-called Frischella cases in existence, | was naturally led to think that there had probably been some mistake made about them, or some accidental transposition of cases, and that these conspicuella-_like cases might, perhaps, after all, be veritable cases of C. conspicuella.

To sum up the whole matter then, and bearing in mind that Mr. Dale’s original specimens of C. trifolia (= Frischella) are undoubtedly the species now known as C. melilotella, I think it has been shown

1. that the imagines of these two (?) species are in every respect identical ; 2. that the recorded localities for the insects are the same ;

3. that C. Frischella used, previous to 1860, to frequent “ rather plentifully ’ the flowers of “ the trefoil ;’ while C. melilotella has, ever since 1860, when it first received its name, been found in some plenty attached to the flowers of the melilot, which was formerly known and classed as a trefozl.

Against all this we have the fact that the two cases in Mr. Bond’s cabinet, which have long been supposed to be those of C. Prischella, have no resemblance whatever to the rather peculiar cases of C. meli- lotella.

After reading Mr. Bond’s own account of his cases, and carefully weighing the pros and cons, the only reasonable conclusion open to us seems to be that we have here an instance of one and the same species doing duty, for more than a quarter of a century, for two distinct species under different names. The mistake may, I think, be attributed entirely to the fact that the identity of Mr. Bond’s cases has, up till now, never been called in question; and we can only regret that so large an amount of time and energy has been spent in vain by so many Micro-Lepidopterists in the attempt to re-discover in its original localities the long-lost C. Frischella—an attempt which has almost invariably ended (and no wonder!) in the capture of the more recently described C. melclotella.

A word must now be added to explain the omission of any reference to foreign authors in general, and Von Heinemann’s “Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz” referring to the account given in that work (Band u, Heft ii, s. 549,

A 2

in particular. On

4 [June,

1877) of C. Frischella, one is very apt to be misled, as in fact I myself was, into thinking that the matter is at once set at rest because the descriptions answer most accurately in every detail to the imago and ease of C. melilotella; but Mr. Stainton informs me (1) that it is extremely probable that those descriptions were written not by Von Heinemann himself, but by Dr. Wocke, who completed the work after the lamented decease of Von Heinemann; and (2) that the imago and case there described were in all probability those of C. melilotella, to which the name Frischella was there given for the first time, Frischella not having been previously known as occurring in Germany or in Switzerland.

C. melilotella first received its name in 1860, the larve having been found almost simultaneously at Stockton-on-Tees by Mr. John Scott, and at Frankfort-on-the-Main by Herr Mihlig, in the previous August.

Very, very few specimens of the imago seem to have been known in Germany until Sorhagen captured some at Berlin in 1878, nor does any one in that country appear to have been successful in breeding the insect.

In conclusion, then, it seems clear that henceforth the name melilotella must disappear from our lists, and must, with trifoliz, stand simply as a synonym of Frischella; so that for the future the synonymy will be :—

CoLEoPHORA FRISCHELLA, Linneus, Stn. trifolii, Curtis, melilotella, Scott.

I have just learnt from Mr. Stainton, who has kindly furnished me with all the extracts from German authors relating to this species, that Herr Anton Schmid, in his “ Lepidoptera of Regensburg,” which appeared in 1886, has already assigned melzlotella, Scott, as a synonym to Frischella, L., though he does not give any reasons for so doing.

The Rectory, Corfe Castle : April 20th, 1888.

P.S.—Since the above notes were written, Mr. F. Bond has most obligingly lent me one of the two reputed cases of OC. Frischella, which were given him by Mr. E. Shepherd, and, after making a most minute and careful examination of it, I must honestly confess that I have failed to trace the slightest difference whatever between it and the cases of O. conspicuella in wy cabinet, and I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that it really belongs to that species. The

1888, ] 5

distinctions relied on by Mr. Bond are that it is longer and more curved than the case of C. conspicuella, but I find, on the contrary, that it is exactly the same length (7'") as my longest conspicuella cases, whilst it is not so much curved as some of my cases of that species. Seeing that Mr. Shepherd took neither the moths nor the cases him- self, it seems quite possible that he may have wrongly connected in his mind the cases of C. conspicuella with the imagines of C. Frischella, and have been under that false impression when he gave the insects and eases to Mr. Bond. As Mr. Bond’s cases have for a long time been the only obstacles to the union of the old trifolii with the modern melilotella, I think it will be admitted that the question of C. Frischella, L. (trifolii, Curtis), versus C. melilotella, Scott, has now been satis- factorily settled.— May 2nd, 1888.

CONCERNING SOME OF HAWORTH’S TYPES OF BRITISH MICRO-LEPIDOPTERA.

BY WILLIAM WARREN, F.ES.

While lately looking over the types of Haworth’s insects in the British Museum, I made three discoveries, which are, I think, worth recording. I must explain that each insect bears on its pin a small browned ticket, with Haworth’s own name, in, I presume, his own hand-writing. In cases where Haworth’s names have had to give place to older ones, a large blue paper label is pinned underneath the

-specimens. The names on these larger labels, as well as the notice at the top of the drawer, that these types were presented to the British Museum by the Entomological Society, are in the hand-writing, so Mr. Waterhouse tells me, of the late Mr. F. Smith. This gentleman, not being a Lepidopterist, cannot be held accountable for the mistakes which occur, in several instances, in the application of the names, and the errors in the spelling are probably due to illegibility in the original labels which Mr. Smith copied: e. g., we find frillatana for frutetana, affractana for effractana.

Now, above the ticket marked splendidulana are two insects, each with the smaller brown label in Haworth’s own writing. The left- hand one is marked strobilana, and is what we now are accustomed to eall splendidulana ; the other is named fraternana, and is an unmis- takeable example of distinctana, Wilk., = proximana, H.-S. The specimen is a ¢, with the costal fold distinct, though in other respects not in particularly good condition. Haworth himself, p. 449, Lep.

6 (June,

Brit., refers to Hiibner’s fig. 70 of Tortria strobilana as his fraternana, but I must confess that to me the figure is unrecognisable. The reference, however, probably misled Stephens, for he, IIl., iv, p. 98, ‘quotes Haworth’s Latin diagnosis cf fraternana, and then proceeds to give another of his own in English, which last applies certainly to splendidulana, Gu., but which Haworth himself called strobilana. It will be noticed that Haworth compares his fraternana with the pre- ceding species, his subseguana, = abiegana, Dup., and there is certainly more resemblance between these insects than between splendidulana and subsequana. He also says, “ Habitat cum precedentibus,”’ and gives “April” with a query. Now, both subsequana and splendidulana occur together in May, which is, I believe, also the proper month for prow- mana, H.-S. At all events, there can be no doubt that Haworth’s name must bave the priority, and the synonymy will, therefore, be :—

fraternana, Haw., Lep. Brit., p. 449, No. 174. proximana, H.-S., fig. 127, iv, p. 219; Hein., p. 165. distinctana, Wilk., p. 111; Stn., 2, 216.

The next discovery is still more interesting. An example of Teleia humeralis, Z., beneath which stands the larger label, “Jucullella”’ (sic), bears Haworth’s own label, with the name decorella on it. For some time I was puzzled, as this name does not occur in Haworth’s Lepidoptera Britannica, but it is quoted as 7. decorella, Haw., in the Tl, iv, p. 218, by Stephens, who includes it in his genus Anacampsis. T have since found it along with notices of a few other, then new, species, in the Transactions of the old Ent. Soc. of London, for the year 1812, pp. 332—340, the paper containing the account having been read by Haworth on the 2nd of June of that same year.

In Hagen’s “ Bibliotheca Entomologica,” p. 350, it appears that the 4th and last part of Haworth’s work was printed in 1812, but not published before 1828 or 1829 ; the MSS. having, as Haworth himself informs us at p. 333 of the Transactions above noticed, passed into the hands of a Mr. W. Savage, with whom the publication rested. Hence, we have the curious anomaly of the names of species contained in what might be considered as an Appendix* to a work, preceding by 16 years those contained in the work itself. (The fact was recognised by Wocke in his catalogue: as he makes tricolorella, Haw., which appears in the paper in the Transactions, precede contigua, Haw., which comes in the pody of the work.)

* Haworth, in 1812, Lene siti an Wee. to his Lepidoptera Britannica but never did so. =p, 8;

1888.]

“I

The synonymy will, therefore, be :— Tinea decorella, Haw., Trans. Ent. Soe. Lond., 1812, p. 338. Gelechia humeralis, Zell., Isis., 1839, p. 200; Stn., I. B., 119, Man., 2, 336 ; H.-S., v., p. 170, fig. 477,478; Frey, Lep., 120. Anacampsis Lyellella (Curt., MSS.), Humph. and West., Brit. Moths, vol. 11, p. 190, pl. 106, fig. 10. Teleia humeralis, Hein., p. 276.

Haworth’s diagnosis is as follows :—“Alis anticis capiteque nivets, costa ipsa interruptim, plagaque communi nivers. “ Lep. Brit. App. inedit. Expans. alarum, 6 lin.”

As Mr. Stainton points out, this, as it stands, is nonsense ; but if for the second “niveis’’ we read “nigris,’ we have an exact de- scription of the specimen with Haworth’s label to it, and which he most probably had before him. If the description stood alone, we should have no right to use the name decorella for the species to which, when altered, we referred it; but with the insect itself also bearing that name, I think we need have no hesitation in admitting it.

Stephens, Ill., iv, p. 213, says of his Anacampsis decorella (to which he wrongly quotes as synonymous, 7. decorella, Haw.), “ Alis anticis nigro-fuscis, fascia basi alteraque postica albis, maculaque media ochracea, posticis fuscis.” His fuller English description shows that he had before him the insect now known as Laverna decorella. Oddly enough, among these types of Haworth’s is another Tinea, with a label in his writing, swbdzstrigella, but under which stands the larger label, decorella ; showing that the author of these labels, whoever he was, could not distinguish between Lav. decorella, with the ochreous markings, and Lav. subbistrigella, which is without them.

_- The label marked “ Jucullella,” placed beneath Haworth’s decorella, may be explained in two ways: either it was simply a mis-spelling for “ luculella,” owing to Stephens’ mention of the ochreous blotch in the middle (but this explanation I doubt: as the name luculella rightly spelt occurs only three places afterwards, rightly placed under Haworth’s swbrosea) ; or it may have been intended for Lyellella, which would explain the double 7/ in the 3rd syllable.

Mr. Stainton, in the I. B., p. 119, quotes decorella, Haw., with a query, as a synonym of humeralis, Z.; probably in mistrust of Stephens’ confusion ; he evidently has not seen this specimen with Haworth’s name attached.

The last rectification also relates to a Gelechid. Under the type marked by Haworth, Knockella, stands on the larger label, Awrofasciana! How the last name crept in, I cannot attempt to explain: but the

8 [JF une,

insect, on close inspection, is seen to be a symmetrically rubbed ex- ample of Nannodia neviferella, the British form of Hitbner’s stipella. Haworth’s description of the white along the inner margin is, of course, misleading, and refers only to this particular rubbed specimen, which was taken at Coombe Wood, and was considered unique. I see that Mr. Stainton, in the Insecta Britannica, p. 186, does quote Knockella, Haw., but with a query, as a synonym of neviferella. I do not think it admits of a doubt. While, therefore, Hiibner’s name, stipella, will stand for the stem form, Knockella, Haw., will have to supersede neviferella, Dup., for the variety.

One more remark, and I have done. It is generally considered that Haworth’s latifasciana is a variety of Schalleriana, but in this type collection an example occurs placed along with five other varieties of Abilgaardana = variegana, which is a much more likely position for it, if it be a variety at all, than the neighbourhood of Schalleriana. I think it will probably turn out to be a distinct species, attached to hornbeam.

London: May, 1888.

[I fear I cannot follow Mr. Warren in accepting his corrections of nomenclature for G'elechia humeralis and G. nevtferella.

With regard to the former, Haworth’s description with the best intentions will not apply, because, by a misprint (or, perhaps, from a blunder in the manuscript), ‘‘ niveis’’ occurs instead of “ nigris.” Mr. Warren proposes to correct this by substituting black for white, and then claims priority, as if he had done so in 1812.

It is possible that Haworth’s type may throw a light on what Haworth intended, but it fails to alter the fact what Haworth did. If we have the power to adjust old descriptions to make them fit old types, we lose all fixity of our ideas.

“Captain Cuttle’s”” watch was a very good one, if you only put it forward half an hour every morning and a quarter of an hour every afternoon, but one would rather not have such a watch in real life.

With reference to Gelechia neviferella, a description which will only apply to symmetrically rubbed specimens.fails to answer my idea of a good description, and I could not advise any one to upset a well known name, by reviving one, ignored till now, and only rendered intelligible by the careful study of the symmetrically rubbed specimen from which it was made.

As to Mr. Warren’s corrections of synonymy amongst the Zor- trices I say nothing, as they are not in my province.—H. T. Sraryron, May 12th, 1888. }

1888. } 9

A CONCISE GENERICAL SYNOPSIS, WITH AN ANNOTATED LIST, OF THE SPECIES OF BRITISH HPHEMERID.

BY REV. A. E. EATON, M.A., F.E.S.

Now that the final (6th) part of a “Revisional Monograph of Recent Ephemeride or Mayflies”’ has been published in the Transac- tions of the Linnean Society of London, 2nd series, Zoology, vol. iii, pp. 352, pls. 65 (1884—88), occasion may be taken to review the nomenclature of the British species, so far as to show in what respects it now differs from that which was adopted in the “Catalogue of British Neuroptera”’ issued in the year 1870 by the Entomological Society of London, and the “ Monograph on the Ephemeride”’ in the Transactions of the same Society for the year 1871. In these earlier publications 37 British species, classed in ten. genera, were admitted. Of those reputed species two were spurious; but the total number has been maintained by the addition of two new species to our fauna. The number of British genera has, however, been enlarged to thirteen by the sub-division of two of the former ten along lines of separation that were recognised to some extent tacitly in 1870. 1.—Fifth tarsal joint from the tip of the ? fore-leg and of the hinder-legs of both

sexes either wanting or distinguishable only by contour or colour .........2. Fifth tarsal joint from the tip articulate with with the tibia in both sexes, and. usually in all of the legs; but when it is distinguishable by contour or colour VOI, WATE TOTO O)ITES Gansosceopabodbendee dub orcuoe soneeH ond Fue boticodonadaqacte5000 8. Fo AN TS GEC EN EELES | sa400n deo ean encode pee cob B05 p08 cad bod susdbooRo Ace Gobag bos oaeenbund acobGot Two setee, the third aborted. ¢ eyes bi-partite; the upper segment turbinate...7.

Sr HM OUP WAN MS tii cica tana tens atserits Seatac see ricci escieasasclawunseivasiove domessmrcmenensceaats Two wings, the hinder lacking. eyes smoothly contoured, far asunder...

Cenis.

4'—Greyes smoothly contoured wi cicaviseotiea sonsaseehiesdaGeonvestalscdeesncenes wesedeenDe

& eyes more or less ascalaphoid (indistinctly so in Habrophlebia) ........... 6.

5.—Basal joint of g forceps one of the shortest. ........... ........+++ ..... Mphemera.

Basal joint of g forceps much the longest ...............s0.+.+......Potamanthus.

6.—Basal joint of ¢ forceps much longer than the remainder. Hind-wing slightly BrChed MV rrOntimnassuey ssceesh aes cantons wnacetecires onmesma ae Hep LOM LeOLGs

Basal joint of ¢ forceps sub-equal in length to the remainder. Hind-wing an- gulated in the middle of the costa ... ................0.0000e 00+ +: abrophlebia.

Basal joint of g forceps very short ; 2nd joint much the longest. Hind-wing archedoinprontieerccr-Nepcigsepecess: soJ-scherseccatercinccesonasins testis PREMECTELLCs

7.—Hind-wings minute, moderately broad, obtuse, bi- or tri-nerved, and (as a rule) WALMOUE A CrOSSLVOINOG occ ccecesicaeanpciitcbgsencbedeoeiaciccdapouecciccssaseas@eles. Hind-wings minute, very narrow, binerved ................. ........ Centroptilum. ELI CWA PAPLACKAN Beer wero jis cis ca’: sul clvscineiyoins cinelssiene ounlea Nabstsoatamesieis soi LOCOMs

10 ‘June,

8.—Hinder tarsi equal in length to, or longer than, the tibie. Tarsal ‘claws all

narrow and hooked c.4cccecasseesnrc eau nent es tee ee oh aco s CROP LeU Hinder tarsi shorter than the tibiw ; one claw obtuse, the other hooked in every PAPE UB Yate e eee Ree Haak sca atusen cibekc Me trian eel cad hie ereiic Sei ae een eRe

9.—Basal joint of the fore tarsus much shorter than the next joint in both sexes...

Basal joint of the g fore tarsus much shorter than the next joint; that of the ? fore tarsus only a little shorter than the next. Femora sometimes dark- banded, spotless. Basal joint of hind tarsus longer than, or equal in length to; the next Joint co.cc. ccsskeccne oc aeinsneneeiloeer eee ee taki bate eae eRe 11.

10.—Basal joint of hind tarsus equal to the next joint. Femora usually marked with a dark median spot. ee of sub-imago aie light greyish ; transverse neuration rather fine.............0....scceeeeeees .. Rhithrogena.

Basal joint of hind tarsus shorter than the next joint. Femora either without markings, or with ouly very faint bands. Wings of sub-imago light yellowish, becoming ae a ae with grey before the moult ; transverse neura- tion moderate . Radel Satara cine Neue aan tence .. Heptagenia.

11.—Penis lobes Broadly dilated at the tip. Wings of sub-imago greyish, with rather strong transverse neuration, becoming striped transversely with dark

grey before the moult .....................Section A of Eedyurus, Nos. 34—36. Penis lobes small, obvate. Wings of sub-imago uniformly grey, never striped ; transverse neuration rather fine ......... . ...Section B of Eedyurus, No. 37.

In the following list of the British species, the synonymy is limited to names in the Entomological Society’s Catalogue of 1870 that have become obsolete, and the bibliographical references to the Monograph on the Hphemeride in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., and the Revisional Monograph in Trans. Linn. Soc., Lond., above mentioned. For brevity these three publications are here cited as “ Cat.,” “ Mon.,” and “ Revis.,’ respectively ; the date of publication in the Revision alone is stated in parenthesis.

1. Ephemera vulgata, Linné: Mon., p. 68, pl. iv, 5, 56 [adult details] ;

Revis., p. 59, pl. viii, 126 [adult details], and xxx [nymph] (1884).

The piceous dorsal markings of the best-marked abdominal segment comprise a

large pair of acute triangular spots, pointing backwards from the base, and a shorter pair of fine lines between them also from the base.

Summer. Rivers.

2. Ephemera danica, Miller: Mon., 72, pl. iv, 8, 8a [adult dette: Revis., 61, pl. viii, 12¢ [adult details] (1884).

The dark markings of the chalky-white abdomen comprise on the dorsum of the best-marked segment a pair of moderately broad sub-lanceolate streaks, shorter than the segment, from the base, with a shorter pair of very narrow streaks between them ; the markings on each side sometimes coalesce, and are either lacking entirely, or else are reduced to a single pair of triangular spots in the anterior segments. +

Summer. Streams. °

1888.] | LL

3. Ephemera lineata, Eaton: Mon.,.71, pl. iv, 7,76 [adult details] ; Revis., 63 (1884).

The best-marked abdominal segment has six longitudinal, linear, dark dorsal stripes, shorter than the segment; of these the outer pair of stripes on each side consists of sub-sinuate stripes of almost equal length, pointed at both ends, and much longer than the median pair, which is composed of curved stripes.

Near Reading. Summer.

4. Potamanthus luteus, Linné: Mon., 76, pl. ii, 1, and iv, 18, 184 [adult details]; Revis., 79, pl. ix, 14 [adult details], and xxxi [nymph] (1884).

The sub-imago is apt to be mistaken for the common Heptagenia sulphurea.

The forked second axillar nervure of the fore-wing, and the lobed ninth ventral

segment, serve to distinguish the female insect from Hphemera.

Weybridge. Summer.

5. Leptophlebia marginata, Linné: Mon., 84, pl. ii, 2a, and iv, 25, 256 [adult details] ; Revis., 93, pl. xi, 17a [adult details] (1884). Wings of sub-imago grey, spotless. Penis lobes pointed, spurred beneath.

Spring and autumn.

6. Leptophlebia submarginata, Stephens: Revis., 94 (1884), = L. helvipes, Cat., p. 7; Mon., 85, pl. iv, 26, 26d [adult details].

Wings of sub-imago grey, pale-spotted in the midst. Penis lobes flanged trans- versely at the tips, spurred beneath.

Spring and summer.

7. Leptophlebia cincta, Retz.: Mon., 87, pl. ui, 2c, and iv, 27 [adult details] ; Revis., 95, pl. xxxii [nymph] (1884). ~ Wings of sub-imago black, spotless. Anterior abdominal segments of ¢ usually transparent white. Penis lobes flanged shortly at the tips transversely, spurred beneath. The sub-imago and adult ¢ are apt to be mistaken for Baétis pumilus. _

Summer.

8. Habrophlebia fusca, Curtis: Revis., 116, pl. xiii, 22@ [adult details], and xxxvi [nymph] (1884), = Leptophlebia fusca, Cat., p. 7; Mon., 90, pl. ii, 2c, and v, 2, 2 [adult details].

Summer. Small streams.

9. Ephemerella ignita, Poda: Mon., 98, pl. 11, 5, and v, 7, 7a [adult details]; Revis., 126, pl. xiv, 24a [adult details], and xxxvii [nymph] (1884).

Penis lobes truncate at the tip before desiccation.

Summer and autumn.

12 {J une,

10. Ephemerella. notata, Eaton: Revis., 305, pl. Ixv, 9 [adult details] (1887).

Penis lobes pointed at the tip before desiccation.

River Eden [Cumberland] and South of Scotland.

11. Cenis dimidiata, Stephens: Mon., 95 (part), pl. ii, 4, and v, 5 [adult details] ; Revis., 142, pl. xv, 260 [adult details] (1884). Female abdomen chalky-white, tinged in the first five segments with greyish. do genitalia whitish. Summer.

12. Cenis rivulorum, Eaton: Revis., 143 (1884), and 320 (1888). Female abdomen white, partially varied with greyish in the first three segments. & genitalia whitish. Summer.

13. Cenis halterata, Fabricius: Revis., 144, pl.xv, 26, 26a [adult details | and xlii, 1, 2, 7—17, and 22—25 [nymph] (1884), = C. macrura and chironomiformis, Cat., p.8; Mon., 93 and 94, pl. v, 4 [adult details].

Female abdomen blackish-grey above, varied with ochreous towards the sides and at the joinings. ¢ sub-genital membrane broadly edged at the tip with blackish, and usually marked at the base with a median, almost semicircular, mucronate spot of the same colour.

Summer.

14. Cenis Harrisella, Curtis: Revis., 146 (1884), = C. luctuosa, Cat., p. 8; Mon., 97, pl. v, 6 [adult details]; Revis., pl. xlii, 5, 6, 18— 21, 27, 28 [details of nymph] (1884). Female abdomen warm sepia-brown, marked on each side in every joining with a short black line, and near the base of every setaceous pleural process with a pale elongate or oblong spot. ¢ sub-genital membrane pale, excepting at the sides before the forceps, and a narrow, slightly tapering streak about half its length from the middle of the base, which are dark greyish. Summer. Near Reading.

(To be concluded in our next).

DESCRIPTION OF A NEW NEPTICULA FROM BEECH.

BY H. T. STAINTON, F.R.N.

NEPTICULA FULGENS, 2. sp.

Anterior-wings shining olive-green to beyond the middle, then with @ very brilliant silvery fascia, rather obliquely placed ; sometimes the ground colour is a little darker immediately before the fascia ; the apical portion of the wing is of a rich chocolate-brown, in certain lights looking blacker and contrasting strongly with the pale grey cilia; head whitish-ochreous, darker on the vertex. Exp. al. 2$ lin.

1888. } 13

Of this very pretty species I have seen several specimens, bred by Mr. I. H. Threlfall from beech leaves. Its most striking character is “the effulgent metallic brilliancy’”’ (to quote the words applied by J. F. Stephens to the silver spots of Argynnis Lathonia) of the silvery fascia, but the glossiness of the basal portion of the wing would alone serve to distinguish it from the usual beech feeder, NV. Tityrella, a much duller and more sober looking insect. At present the character of the mine has hardly been sufficiently distinguished.

Amongst Mr. Threlfall’s specimens of this novelty was one perhaps not identical, but likewise from beech ; it had the same brilliant silvery fascia, but the basal portion of the wing was more of a golden-brown, and there was a broader dark band before the fascia, and the head appeared to me black.

Professor Frey described, in 1856, in his Tineen und Pterophoren der Schweiz, p. 384, a Nepticula fagi from specimens taken (not bred), but he said he felt doubtful whether it was really a distinct species, and not rather a summer brood of floslactella. He adds that he saw specimens in Von Heyden’s collection, which had been “ bred”’ from beech. I think I may safely say that no one would ever be disposed to take

Sulgens for any brood of floslactella, and if we needed further evidence to show that Frey’s fagi was something very different from fulgens, it would be found in his de- scription of the fascia as “lata, flava (non nitente).”

Yet Professor Frey seems to have had specimens of fulgens in his possession— even though they would not, and could not agree with his description of fagi.

In October, 1855, I received from him a specimen with the name fagella, which I can now unhesitatingly refer to fulgens. Fortunately I never was much of a believer in types, knowing how easy it is to misplace specimens and to mix up allied species, or the inspection of this specimen would have puzzled me.

As it is, I can only assume that the description of fagi was made from certain caught Nepticule, and that other specimens were afterwards placed with them which were not really identical, and that one of these with the name fagella came to me.

Mountsfield, Lewisham, S.E. : May 16th, 1888.

DESCRIPTION OF THE LARVA OF ZUCLIDIA MI.

BY GEO. T. PORRITT, F.L.S.

A moth of this species, taken June 5th, 1886, at the Green Farm Wood, Doncaster, deposited eggs which were globular in shape, the colour a dull pale green. They hatched about the 28th of the same month, and the young larve were dingy green with large yellowish- brown head; when walking they looped the back in the same way as does a Geometer, and when disturbed at once rolled themselves up and feigned death. They fed well on grass and common white clover, and by July 22nd were slender creatures of about five-eighths of an inch long,

1 4; {[June,.

with only six ventral legs, and, consequently, were veritable “loopers,”’ arching the back as much as any Geometer. On August 7th, when almost an inch long, I described them as follows :—

Very slender: head wider and deeper than the second segment, the lobes evenly rounded; body of nearly uniform width throughout, rounded above, slightly flattened ventrally ; skin smooth, the segmental divisions clearly defined, but not deeply cut ; there are only three pairs of ventral legs, on the 9th, 10th, and 13th segments respectively, the last pair, when at rest, being stretched backwards and outwards, give the appearance of a notched anal prominence. Ground-colour generally dingy pale olive-green, in some specimens, however, bright greenish-yellow; on it is 8 pretty ornamentation of chocolate-brown stripes as follows :—First, a narrow and interrupted medio-dorsal, then a double and more clearly defined one, followed below at about the same distance by another double stripe, then follows a broader one, and immediately adjoining it is the broad and conspicuous lemon-coloured spiracularstripe ; all these stripes extend in strong relief through the head. The ventral surface has a somewhat similar but not so clearly defined ornamentation ; the ground-colour being as on the dorsal area, and having a central, then a double, followed by another double line, all of chocolate-brown.

The habits, perfect manner of looping the back when walking, feeding, and everything else are exactly as in a Geometer; and were it not for the additional pair of ventral legs, it would be impossible to separate it from a Geometer.

The adult larva I described on September 6th as follows :—

Length, about one and a half inches, and, although still rather slender, is considerably stouter in proportion than when last described; head larger and slightly wider than the second segment; body cylindrical above, a little flatter ventrally ; it is of nearly uniform width to the 9th segment, but this and the 1U0th are a little wider, from the 10th it tapers more strongly to the anal extremity; skin smooth, the segmental divisions clearly defined but not deeply cut, and there is a very slight rather puckered ridge along the spiracular region; there are only three pairs of ventral legs, on the 9th, 10th, and 13th segments respectively, the last pair, when at rest, are stretched backwards and outwards, and give the appearance of being a notched anal prominence. Ground-colour bright lemon-yellow, some specimens having an ochreous tinge: the same pretty ornamentation of stripes still remains, as follows :—First, a fine double and rather irregular pale chocolate-coloured medio- dorsal, followed by two broader and darker chocolate, then two more equally broad ones of the paler chocolate, followed by a narrow one of a darker shade of the same colour, and closely followed by a still darker one immediately edging the pale, bright, lemon-yellow, broad, spiracular stripe ; these stripes extend in strong relief through the head down to the mandibles, and the whole ornamentation, taken with the ground-colour, forms a series of alternately chocolate-brown and lemon-yellow stripes. The ventral area is less distinctly marked than when last described: the ground is greyish-yellow in the centre, rust-colour at the sides, with double interrupted

chocolate central stripe; at the sides are two other similarly coloured’stripes, the

1888.] 15

outer edge of the last being close to the broad spiracular stripe; legs and prolegs greyish-yellow, the latter marked on the outside with rust-colour.

Manner of feeding, walking, &c., just as when !ast described. The last two larve went down September 21st, but no imagines afterwards emerged from any of them.

Huddersfield : May 9th, 1888.

Note on Argyrolepia zephyrana, Tr.—On reading Mr. Barrett’s account of A. maritimana and this species (Ent. Mo. Mag., xxiv, p. 219), it occurred to me that the confusion between them may have arisen from the fact that there are two forms of zephyrana. One of these is the small grizzled insect with the ground colour of the fore-wings very pale yellowish-white, and their whole surface thickly sprinkled with dark brown scales which greatly obscure the distinctness of the fascie. This form seems everywhere common in chalky and shingly places ; the other form has the fore-wings of a rather bright primrose-yellow, with the fasciz# in some instances almost obsolete, except a small dark spot on the costa near the apex, while the dark scales are but slightly represented. Its size has, to my knowledge, sometimes led to its being taken for A. maritimana, my largest specimen of which measures about 19 mm. from tip to tip, while my largest 4. zephyrana extends about 16 mm., fully as much as average-sized specimens of its ally. I have only met with the larve of this large form of A. zephyrana in a gross variety of Daucus carota growing on a crumbly, and no doubt in winter very muddy, cliff in the Isle of Wight. I may, perhaps, be allowed to mention that, in addition to the characters pointed out by Mr. Barrett, the fringes of A. maritimana are streaked with dark brown, while those of

A. zephyrana are entirely pale yellow.—W. H. B. FiLercuer, Fairlawn House, Worthing: April 16th, 1888.

On the food plant of Thecla rubi, L.—Mr. Barrett’s remarks on this species (Ent. Mo. Mag., xxiii, p. 197), in his interesting account of his visit to Cannock Chase, lead me, though rather late in the day, to record the circumstances of my first meeting with its larva. In the summer of 1884, Mr. Salvage sent me from- Rannoch a bag of shoots of Vaccinium vitis-idea on which larve, of Euchromia arbutana were feeding. After a while some Lycena-like larve crawled up. On writing to ask Mr. Salvage what species of that genus occurred among the plant, he told me that Thecla rubi was common where the shoots were picked, and that he had most likely sent me its larva by accident. This was duly confirmed by the appearance of some butterflies the following spring. A parallel case of a British butterfly feeding on plants of both the Natural Orders Leguminose and Ericacee, is afforded by the larvew of Lycena Agestis, which the late Mr. Buckler once told me is taken from Calluna vulgaris on the Continent, while he himself reared it on Ornithopus perpusillus. Mr. Barrett once obtained eggs laid on “twigs of heather,” and I also once found the larve on Ling in the New Forest, so that I am inclined to think that this is the usual food plant of the insect.—Ib.

Occurrence in Sussex of Butalis laminella, H.-S., new to Britain.—Among some specimens of B. fuscocuprea swept in Arundel Park, in July, 1886, were a few others of

16 (June,

an indistinct bronzy-green, somewhat like B.fuscoenea in colour, but darker and also much smaller; they measure, indeed, a trifle less