ins 



cerealella of Duponchel. M. Hupin has published a memoir 

 on it in the Annales de V Agriculture Franpaise for June, 1838, 

 and again in 1842. 



I have lent Curtis your book. He says it is " the best book 

 of the kind ever published." He will, however, put his opin- 

 ions on paper. I hope you were pleased with Mr. Spence's 

 opinion. 



HARRIS TO DOUBLEDAY. 



CAMBRIDGE, Oct. 24, 1846. 



About a week ago, I received, by mail, a plate from Du- 

 ponchel's Lepidopteres containing a figure of JSutalis cerealella^ 

 and suppose that you must have been the sender of it. Allow 

 me to make some further comments on this insect, and the 

 genus to which it belongs. I take it for granted that some 

 species, at least, if not the cerealella included by Duponchel in 

 his genus Sutalis, must be found in England. This genus 

 either is or is not a good one. If good, why is it not recog- 

 nized and adopted by English Lepidopterists ? If not a good 

 and legitimate genus what do English Lepidopterists do with 

 the species contained therein ? Some of the species perhaps 

 thev put in Acompsia ; in what genus are the rest arranged ? 

 Mr. Curtis referred me to his genus or sub-genus Laverna ; 

 does he still consider it as belonging thereto? And West- 

 wood (Genera, p. 110) states that in Laverna the second and 

 third joints of the palpi are of equal length, and that the head is 

 short and broad. In my insect the third joint of the palpi is 

 evidently longer than the second, and the head is not broad. 

 My principal object in applying to you relative to this insect, 

 was to ascertain to what genus the best British Lepidopterists 

 would, without reference to Duponchel, refer this species, if it 

 be at all referable to any British genus. If it cannot be in- 



