4 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S KECORD. 



do I know of any definite disagreement with this result being recorded 

 except my brief remarks in Trans. Ent. Soc, 1898, p. 204. As 

 regards the close resemblance of these two species at Le Lautaret, 

 Kiebia ccto ought certainly to be added to the group, if not also P:. 

 i'lu'plnoii. These four species fly together, it is almost impossible to 

 distinguish them on the wing, though there is a little difit'erence in the 

 Hight of J'!, nielaiii/iiis that enables one often to make a fair guess as to 

 which it is. When caught, E. vjiijiliron and K. veto are easily recog- 

 nised, though the latter is a small form with very small markings, 

 both the brown patches and eyespots, so that it difi'ers little at first 

 view from K. melampus, till the wedge-shaped form of the brown spots 

 is noticed. E. pliarte is, perhaps, best separated by the form of the 

 brown beneath the forewing, which is a more or less regular, con- 

 tinuous band ; in E. iiielainpiin it is irregular, broken up, or defective. 

 I did not bring home many specimens of these, but I captured a 

 very considerable number, and never had any difficulty in saying to 

 what species any specimen belonged. 



The close resemblance of these species here is due to what may be 

 called, for convenience, whether it be really so or not, the mimicry of 

 E. pliaite by K. iiielcniijuis, and by E. ceto. In E. iiielavi/nis the black 

 spots dwindle and almost disappear to a degree that is certainly rare in 

 other localities, whilst in E. ceto the same change occurs, and the size 

 of the insect is much the same as that of E. jiliarte. I do not know 

 what is the most typical size of E. ceto. At Fusio they are very 

 large ; nowhere are they, I think, smaller than at Le Lautaret. 



If mimicry has anything to do with this grouping, it is curious 

 that E. p/iarte should be the model, as it seems to be, the E. p/iarte 

 being very nearly of the usual form, and the E. vielampiis and E. ceto 

 varied to accord with it. In connection with this I may refer to the 

 long series of E. pliarte and E. manto, which I took above Guarda 

 (Lower Engadine), in which the K. manto has departed from its usual 

 form, and in appearance is very close indeed to Pj. jiJiarte, so close in 

 some cases that it is certainly more difficult to pronounce as to some 

 specimens than it is in the case of E. )iida}iipus and E. pjharte at Le 

 Lautaret. Yet ordinary E. manto is really a very different insect from 

 E. pharte. 



This case of E. manto seems to confirm the idea that it is the E. 

 pliarte, that is the model, and that the other species achieve some 

 advantage by confusing themselves with it. 



Amongst the moths the only species not noticed by Tutt about 

 which I need make any remark are Oniia cymbalariae, which was 

 frequently seen on the wing in the sunshine, possibly stirred up, but 

 I think seen so often that flying in the sunshine must be its natural 

 habit. cUsioeampa alpirola larv8e were seen, a fresh $ imago was 

 found at rest. The nests of Erio(/aster arbimcidae, which is certainly 

 specifically distinct from E. lanestris, were abundant on the low- 

 growing Sali.r arbiisciila in wet places, and also on alders. Larvfe 

 were also found, but no nests, in places where both willows and 

 alders were very distant, so that some other foodplant or foodplants 

 seem to be indicated. Larvse of this species brought home in previous 

 years always failed to be successfully treated, small ones died, larger 

 ones were stung with hardly an exception, and the few cocoons finally 

 obtamed never eventuated, so I made no attempt to do anything with 

 the species on this occasion. 



