COLEOPHORA BICOLORELLA, STT., AND C, POLITELLA, SCOTT. 249 



viininetella and distinctly of two colours, but it is much stumpier and 

 stouter tban any viininetella case I ever met with." It is here stated 

 that the larvae were found on elm, but subsequently in the same 

 volume (p. 157) it is pointed out that a mistake had been made by 

 Mr. Saver and that alder was the foodplant. In the Ent. Annual for 

 1861, Stainton again mentions hicolordla, saying (p. 90) that Scott 

 had proposed the name politella for a nut-feeding Coleophora and adds : 

 " Further investigations are necessary to establish the identity or the 

 distinctness of /lolitella and bicolorella." 



In July, 1901, I bred some moths from alder, from East Hoathly,, 

 and labelled them bicolorella. In 1907 I found similar cases on nut in 

 Chiswick, the moths bred were different in appearance and I labelled 

 them / politella. These were smaller and darker, very much like the 

 Chiswick specimens of fnscedinella, while the others were larger and of 

 an ochreous tint. However, in 1912, a larva, found on hazel at 

 Darenth Wood, produced an ochreous specimen exactly like the above- 

 mentioned moths bred from alder. On comparing the ochreous speci- 

 mens with Scott's description of politella, it was found that they 

 agreed in every particular, except that the apex of the forewings did 

 not appear to be any more falcate than that of faficedinella. It seemed 

 certain that my specimens labelled bicolorella = 'BGott's politella ; what 

 then was Stainton's bicolorella / To test this point it appeared only 

 necessary to consult the Stainton collection and see the specimens he 

 had labelled bicolorella. Unfortunately, no such specimens could be 

 found in the collection. There is a series of ochreous specimens which 

 agree with Scott's description of his politella, but they bear no name. 

 In the absence of any type one must rely on description. There is 

 nothing in Stainton's meagre description of the imago to separate it 

 from Scott's msect. His description of the larval case is almost in the 

 same words as that of Scott. The difference in the foodplants need 

 not be considered, as both belong to the same order. In the light of 

 our present knowledge it therefore appears that Scott's and Stainton's 

 insects are one and the same species. 



Mr. Turner kindly lent me the specimens he had bred, for com- 

 parison with my own, and after careful examination, there appears to 

 be little doubt that my fuscous nut-fed specimens are the same species 

 as the ochreous moths bred from alder. One of the former distinctly 

 shows the ochreous tint, and in Mr. Turner's series there are inter- 

 mediate specimens. The species varies both in size and in coloration. 



With regard to priority, the case appears to be as follows : in the 

 year 1860, Stainton and his friends were especially interested in the 

 genus Coleophora. Volume v. of the Nat. Hist. Tin., the second 

 volume dealing with the genus, was published in that year. On August 

 4th Mr. Sayer brought a series of moths and some larval cases to 

 Stainton, who recognised in them a new species. Two days later, 

 August 6th, Scott read his paper, as mentioned above. Five days 

 afterwards, August 11th, 1860, Stainton published the instalment of 

 the Intelliijencer, in which he describes the insect brought to him by 

 Saj'^ers and names it bicolorella on account of its party-coloured larval 

 case. As Scott's paper was not published till after January, 1861, 

 Stainton's name for this species has priority. Bicolorella is, of course, 

 abundantly distinct from C. fnscedinella. We now know that it diflers 

 from the last, not only in its larval case, but also in the ovum, larva, 

 and imago. 



