BRITISH SPKCIKS OF LITHOCOLLETIS OF THE SPINICOLELLA GROUP. 105 



I'lfKHs aunipano. This comparison leads mc to quote llod^'kinson's 

 orip^iual notes t'o mc on his specimens, because I am (piite satisfied 

 that our micro-lepi(lo[)terists liave here a diflieult matter to clear 

 up, nor I do not thiuk tlie i)ublication of any opinion of llodg- 

 kinson's will complicate matters, but rather cause our authorities to 

 j;;ive the specimens the attention they deserve, and prol)ably clear up 

 what appears to me a distinct muddle. 



1. — ilodgkinsou's remarks on tlie specimens, and my notes to him 

 thereon, read thus : — 



(1) '' Lithorollctifi pailiu'lla. — I l)red two only from bird-cherry 

 (Pninm padm). One I gave to Ijord Walsingham, the other I send. 

 He considered it to be L. tonnindla, but it is evidently nearer L. 

 spinicoh'lla. I have found scores of the mines on J\ jiadns, but I 

 have bred only these two." Witli regard to this, 1 wrote that Sang 

 (H.}f.M., xxii., p. 262) had bred a Lithdcollctis ft'om J'ntuus padus, that 

 he had considered the specimens " identical with the mountain-ash 

 species," that Mr. Staintou had pointed out that a Continental species fed 

 on I'ninm }ia(liu<, and was Imowu as jKuldla, Glitz. I fm'ther suggested 

 that if Sang was wrong iu uniting the Pnimis and I'ljiu^ specimens as 

 the same species, and that if om* Prnnm species proved identical with 

 the Continental Frunus species, the name would be paddla, not paduella. 



(2) " L. pyraridht. — The larva of this is grey with a black head. 

 It puckers the underside of the leaves of Pjirm aria, making a long 

 silken white mine over an inch long. It is difficult to bring home the 

 leaves, as they are six inches long, and bending the leaf breaks the mine 

 I find them on only one tree at Windermere." I was not able to make 

 any suggestion as to the single individual sent to me under this name. 



(3) " L. snrbi. — Received from T. Wilkinson. I had four specimens, 

 one I gave Dr. Wood, who had never seen the insect before ; neither 

 had Vine, who saw all four specimens." To this I replied that I con- 

 sidered this to be Saug's L. aorbi, from I'l/nis aiu-uparia, which he said 

 was " plentiful on the mountain-ash at high elevations." This, if any of 

 our British species should be, is most likely to be the 7/. KorU of Frey, 

 but I am not at all sure that any of our species is the L. .wrbi of Frey. 



(4) " L. aneupariae. — The next two specimens are the true aucu- 

 pariae. I bred several of this during the last season (1896), from 

 mountain-ash only." On these I remarked that these appeared to be 

 identical vrith the last = snrbi, Sang ; that L. ancupariella (not 

 aimipariac) was, I thought, Scott's manuscript name for the insect 

 Sang called L. wrbi, Frey, and that both sorbi, Frey, and anruparidla, 

 Scott (MS.) fed in the larval stage on Pijrm anrnparia. 



II. — About the same time a discussion on these species took place in 

 the book of one of our exchange baskets. The main points of the dis- 

 cussion were ae follows : (1) I note one of the species of Lit/iocnlletis, from 

 Plirxia (Sorbus) aucuparia, is called by Mr. J. B. Hodgkiuson, L. anru- 

 paridla, Scott (MS.), and he insists not only that this species is distinct 

 from L. Rorbi (also from mountain-ash), as defined ])y Sang, l)ut also that 

 the L. sorhi of Sang is distinct from //. snrbi, Frey. The Rev. C. D. 

 Ash breeds, fi'om mountain-ash, a Lithocollctis that he records {Knt. 

 Ni'c, ix., ]>. (il) as L. sorbi. Dr. Corl)ett rejiorts that these " are quite 

 identical with the species " that he breeds " from P. aucuparia," wliilst 

 Dr. Wood is reported as considering them similar to, if at all dis- 

 tinguishable fi'om, /.. t'innindla. (2) ^Ir. X. M. Richardson points 



