1904.] 255 



my efforts to adjust the lid. My good fortune in having been present at the cap- 

 ture of two British specimens of Diasemia ramhurialis is greatly appreciated, even 

 though in the case of the example taken in South Dorset by the Rev. C. R. Digby 

 [vide Ent Mo. Mag., xxv, 381 (1889)], the jiart I played was only a passive one. 

 I am not aware that Z). ramhurialis has been previously recorded from Devon, 

 although records exist of its occurrence both in Dorset and elsewhere to the east, 

 and in Cornwall to the west of that county. — Id. : Auc/ust 5th, 1904. 



Acrohasis vemicella, Hb., in South Devon and the hie of Wight. — With re- 

 ference to Mr. C. G. Barrett's interesting paper [Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, xiv, IGt— 6 

 (1903)] on "Acrohasis verrucella, lib., and nibrotihiella, F. R., as British Insects," 

 it will help towards a better knowledge of the distribution of these species in 

 Britain if I state that the specimen captured by myself in S. Devon in 1901, and 

 recorded in Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, xiv, fJB (1903), under the name " Ac rob axis 

 tumidana, Schiff. (ruhrotib ielIa,F . U.) ," is referable to the species described by Mr. 

 Barrett as verrucella, Hb., which is, as he points out, clearly distinct from the one 

 to which he assigns the name rubrotibiella, F. R. The only example of the latter 

 that I have ever seen came into my possession, very shortly before the appearance 

 of Mr. Barrett's notes, from a British collection, though unfortunately its history 

 is quite unknown, and the distinctions between it and verrucella, Hb., :)t once showed 

 me that the two forms could not be co-specific, though the works necessary for the 

 solution of the problem were not at hand. 



Another south coast locality for A. verrucella, Hb., is the Isle of Wight, for 

 although Mr. Barrett states, doubtless with good reason, that the late Mr. Howard 

 Vaughan used to take the species in its old locality near Forest Hill, the four 

 specimens that I have examined out of the series that stood in the Howard Vaughan 

 collection at the time of its dispersal, were all labelled as taken in the Isle of Wight 

 by Mr. H. Bartlett, in 1873, and I fancy that some others therein were from the 

 same source. 



It would be interesting if those who have British specimens of either of these 

 species would publish all known details about them. Now that the distinctions 

 between these close allies have received tardy recognition, it is to be hoped that some 

 one who has access to the necessary works will carefully revise afresh the tohole 

 synonymy, with the revision of Mons. Ragonot, published in Ent. Mo. Mag., xxii, 

 27 — 8 (1885), and adopted in the "Catalog " by Drs. Staudinger and Rebel (1901), 

 before him. — Id. : August 6th, 1904. 



Aplecta nebulosa ab. robsoni, Collins, " Ent. Rec," ii, p. 264, = var. thompsoni, 

 Arkle, " Ent. Mo. Mag.," xl, p. 180.— Absence on the continent at the time of the 

 publication of the August Magazine must have been tlie reason of my not seeing 

 Mr. Arkle's note (anteci p. 180) ; at any rate, that of Mr. Porritt's (p. 236) is the 

 first intimation that I had had that robsoni had been rcnained. Mr. Porritt com- 

 plains that thompsoni is included in robsoni ; as I have one of the original robsoni 

 (the first, I believe, that was ever noted, Ent. Rec, i, p. 241), I can go a step 

 further than Mr. Porritt, and assert that thompsoni is absolutely robsoni. The fact 

 is that the form has never been more than roughly diagnosed, and the type specimen 

 in my collection contains all the points that Mr. Arkle relies on for the separation of 



