19070 183 



that ordinarily separate the four pairs from one another. In all 

 other respects the specimen, which had both fore-winp;s symmetrical 

 in markings, is perfectly normal, thouoh rather undersized. 



TTawoi'th (I.e.) says of cosfipuncfnno that it occurs in Norfolk 

 but is very uncommon, while Stephens (111,, H;iust., iv, 95) says of it, 

 " Rare : occasionall}' found in July near London, and in Norfolk, and 

 I possess a specimen which was found near Edinburgh." As already 

 stated, there was, in 1896, only one specimen, viz., Haworth's original 

 INorfolk individual, standing under the name " costipiinctana " in the 

 collection, but it was impossible to tell what specimens Stephens had 

 placed under this name, for Dr. Butler then informed me that the 

 collection, thougli founded on that of Stephens, had been completely 

 re-arranged - it was not known by whom - since Stephens' time. 

 Probably Wood's figure of costipunctana (Tnd. Ent., PI. 31, fig. 907) 

 was taken from a specimen standing under this name in the Stephens 

 collection, and presumably it is intended to represent an abnormally 

 small and pale male of costipunctana, Hw. 



Haworth gives the alar. exp. of costipunctana as 6'", and Stephens 

 gives it as 6^", while the latter gives trigeminana as expanding 10'" | 

 This last measurement is obviously incorrect, for Stephens himself 

 says (111., iv, 94) that he has only seen one specimen of tricjeminana: 

 this must therefore be the one figured on the Plate {op. cit.., PI. 37, 

 fig. 3), but the natural size, given below the enlarged figure, shows 

 that the alar. exp. of the individuii! w;is only 7],"\ which is about the 

 usual expanse of a good-sized exaniple of the s])ecies. Haworth's 

 type specimen, set as it is with the wings drooping, would, if perfect, 

 expand fully G'", and would be exactly the same size as a small 

 typical specimen that stood in the series of '"'' trigeminana'''' just before 

 it, and as one or two sjiecimens in my own series. 



The identity of the moth standing as costipunctana in the 

 Doubleday collection, and referred to by Barrett (I.e.), is beside the 

 question of nomenclature. I find, however, that when looking 

 through the collection some years ago, I made a note to the effect 

 that the specimen, which is pale and very worn, may safely be 

 referred to " trigenvinava " ; I made no entry about the arrangement 

 of the costal markings, but since Barrett says that the individual 

 agrees most accurately with Haworth's description, I infer that they 

 are similar to those in Haworth's type specimen. 



In the well-known "Catalog" by Staudinger and Woeke, and 

 elsewhei'e, the name costipunctana, which is omitted from Staudinger 



