b THE EXTOMOL0(tIST S RECORD. 



This description of Hawoi'th's, which, I think, would have been 

 veiy different if he had the real D. ptitriddla before hina, seems to 

 form the basis of all the descriptions published under this name by 

 British authors till that by Stainton in 1870, when he described 

 specimens of the true species from Germany. Curtis mentions the 

 name only in his Guide (1829). Stephens, in his Cataloi/xe of Brituh 

 Inserts (1829), lists D. imtridella, citing Hiibner, Haworth, and Curtis. 

 We learn here that he took the moth himself, and that it occurred 

 within 25 miles of St. Paul's Cathedral, London. Later, in the 

 Illustrations, Stephens describes an insect under the name of D. 

 putridella, and mentions Norfolk and the New Forest as localities, but 

 not the London district, though he refers to bis Cataloi/i(e. His 

 Latin diagnosis is very similar to Haworth's, and indeed his whole 

 description reminds one very strongly of that by Haworth. Of the 

 stigmata be says, " Four dots on the disc towards the costa, two of 

 which are minute and black, and placed obliquely before the middle, 

 then a larger fuscous one, and finally a white one, with a black edge." 

 Of the hindwings he says, " Posterior wings whitish, with pale 

 ochreous cilia." The larger fuscous dot, the colour of the hind- 

 wings, and the cilia point to D. yeatiana (llhist. Brit. Ent. Haust., 

 vol. iv., p. 202, 1834). 



Stephens' own specimen, now in the collection at the British 

 Museum, labelled " jrutrida" clears up, however, all doubt as to what 

 species he had before him. This specimen is certainly D. yeatiana, 

 but curious!}' it is almost the least-veined example of Stephens' series, 

 the veins being only marked by dots. Above it are other specimens 

 with quite strongly-marked veins. In fact the specimen, labelled 

 " yeatiana,'' is much more strongly marked than that labelled 

 " putrida.'' There is one curious point about the label attached to 

 this specimen. Stephens himself called the species putridella, but 

 this insect is labelled " juttrida,'' which is the name Haworth used. 

 We know that Stephens bought some of Haworth's insects ; can this 

 specimen be the type of Haworth's Depressaria putrida / This is 

 hardly possible, as it has not dark veins, a feature on which Haworth 

 insists. My own idea is that the specimen labelled " yeatiana " is 

 really Haworth's type specimen of putrida, and the specimen now 

 bearing the label putrida is Haworth's type of yeatsii, and further that, 

 at some time, both these labels became in some way detached from 

 the specimens, and were wrongly replaced. Each of these labels has 

 two pinholes. The one bearing the word putrida is evidently con- 

 temporary with those bearing the names purpurea, alt rem i (sic), and 

 wediopeitinella, but the other, judging from the colour of the paper 

 and the darker ink, seems to have been written later. If so, then 

 that may account for its bearing the word yeatiana, instead of yeatsii, 

 as if Haworth, in later years, adopted the name originally given by 

 Fabricius, or as if the label had been written by another. 



There is an interesting figure in Wood's Inde.r (1839). It is 

 numbered 1180, and by reference to page 172, we find it represents 

 Depressaria putridella, the brown-veined. Wood refers to Stephens, 

 but does not say whence he obtained the specimen he figures. The 

 ground colour of the forewings is pale brown, near the base is a 

 longitudinally elongate triangular dark spot from which a darker 

 brown shade runs to the hind margin ; there are similar shades along 



