352 NoviTATEa ZooLooicAE XXIV. 1917. 



Our Tring Museum copy collates as follows : 



Text. Plates. 



Coleoptera, page3 1-144. Coleoptera, pla. 1, 2, 19, 20. 



Oermaptera. Dennaptera^ ^ 



Urtnoptera > pages 1-212. Urthoplera ) 



Hemiptera ' Neuroptera, pi. 9. 



Lepidoptera, pages 213-336. Lepidoptera, Pis. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18. 



So that our copy has 116 pages more of Orthoptera. etc., than Mr. Oberthiir's and 

 64 pages of Lepidoptera, while it has pis. 5 of Orthoptera and 17 of Lepidoptera 

 which are wanting in his copy. 



Hagen states that the text of the Lepidoptera was never published, and only 

 that of the Hesperiidae ever printed (fide Lederer) ; but m_y 123 pp. of text 

 begin with 26 pages of general history and 96 pages of systematic work, com- 

 mencing with Papilio podaliriws and ending with Sesia rhingiaeformis. 



In 1872 Mr. P. Mabille published in the Aniudes de la Societe Entornologique 

 de France a complete bibliography of all the publications of Rambur ; and from 

 this it would appear that our Tring copy is complete. There is also a complete 

 copy in the Natural History Museum {British Museum). The copy in the British 

 Museum (Bloomsbury) is very incomplete ; it has half the Dermaptera-Orthoptera- 

 Hemiptera section missing and also the whole of the Lepidoptera. The Zoo- 

 logical Society of London's copy is also incomplete, pp. 1 77-212 of the Dermaptera- 

 Orthoptera- Hemiptera and pp. 213-336 of the Lepidoptera being wanting. 



56. Notolophus algirica (Lucas). 



Triehosoma algiricum Lucas, Explor. Scient. Alg. Zool. vol. iii. p. 376. No. 82. pi. 3. f. 6. (1849) 



(Environs d'Alger). 

 Orgyia josephina Austaut, Le Naturaliste, vol. ii. p. 212 (1880) (Oran). 



It has been the custom to look upon Lucas's insect as unrecognisable, and 

 to ignore it ; though Dr. Straud in Seitz puts it down as a form of dnbia 

 and actually ventured to give an aberrational name to the description of an 

 aberration given by Lucas. Although the drawing in the Exploration is very 

 bad and evidently taken from a faded or rubbed specimen or more likely still 

 from a starved abortive individual, the description and figure together leave no 

 doubt in my mind that the insect described by Lucas is the same as that de- 

 scribed by Austaut. However, the description shows that the type of josephina 

 had much more reduced pale marking of the forewings than the type of algiricum, 

 and this is confirmed by ezamination of the actual type now at Tring ; but, not 

 being quite so devoid of marking as the described aberration of Lucas, I think 

 we may say that the coastal form of the dubia group in Algeria must stand as 

 follows : Notolophus algirica (Lucas) cum ab. josephina Aust. et ab. ohliterella 

 Straud. I quite agree that for the present we cannot do otherwise than treat 

 Notolophus algirica (Lucas) as a distinct species, as Mr. Oberthiir has done. 



The Tring series numbers 13 <J(J and 5 ??. 



2 (J<J, 1 9 Oran, March— April 1880-1913 (type Austaut o' and 1 ? ; 1 <J 

 W. R. and E. H.) 



4 (J(j, 4 ?? Environs d'Alger, Captain HoU. 



