54 [March., 



In this species the costa of the strongly ochreous fore-wing is 

 white to about two-thirds, and the short basal joint of the antennae 

 is much thickened. Neither of these peculiarities is mentioned in 

 Dupouchel's description, nor showai in the original drawing or pub- 

 lished figure. This form is illustrated by nearly all the Zeller series 

 (part of which was received from Breslau, from Wocke), and by the 

 Frey and O. Hofmann series ; and sloe (Prumis sjnnosa) is mentioned 

 as its foodplant on the label of one of the Zeller and more than one 

 of the Hofmann specimens — in the case of the others the foodplant is 

 not stated. Some of Frey's five specimens, which are all conspecific, were 

 identified as hadiipennella by Herrich-Schaffer. Zeller himself (J.c.') 

 and Frey (J.c.) clearly indicate that they were doubtful whether their 

 hadiifennella was identical with hadiipenneUa, Dup., and the former 

 says that Duponchel's published figure reminds one of luti'pennella. 

 This form is much like milvi^pennis, Z., but not so strongly ochreous, 

 and its case is altogether different. 

 (3) BadUpenneUa, Stn., I. B. Lep. Tin., 224 (1854), etc., Auct. Angl. 



This form only differs from the last in being decidedly darker in 

 its groimd-colour, which, although somewhat variable, may be described 

 as usually ochreous-brown. Stainton [Man. ii, 384 (1859)] gives ash 

 and elm as its foodplants, and, although decidedly local, it has often 

 been bred in Britain from the latter tree. It is noteworthy that 

 the only continental specimens that I have seen, precisely identical 

 with our British ones, are ten, standing in the Stainton Con- 

 tinental series of hadiipennella, and labelled as bred in 1870 from 

 " Elm, Paris, Ragonot." 



From the other point of view, the following notes were made in 

 favour of Nos. 1 and 2 being identical. Duponchel states on Mann's* 

 authority, that Fischer von Roslerstamm first bestowed the MS. name 

 hadiipennella on the insect, and seeing that Mann communicated the 

 species to Duponchel, Duponchel's hadiipennella should be identical with 

 Fischer's. Now, in the Zeller series, there is a specimen bearing a 

 written label, " Badiipennella, Tosc. FR. 661," which shows that the 

 moth came from Tuscany, through Fischer von Roslerstamm— it is very 

 noticeable that it has a conspicuous white costal stripe from the base to 

 beyond the middle, thus agreeing with hadiipennella, Z. Again, 

 Herrich-Schaffer, in Syst. Bear. Schmet. Eiu-., v, p. 235, no. 670 

 (1856), states that he possesses eight specimens of hadiipennella from 

 Fischer von Roslerstamm' s collection, and since his figure (fig. 680) 



* ZcUer, in Lin. Ent., vii, 348 (1S.V2), .states that Duponchel always used the name 

 "Parreyss" instead of " Jlauii." — E.R.B. 



