1912.] 55 



shows the costa distinctly white to beyoiid the middle, one cannot 

 doubt that this characteristic was present in the eight individuals in 

 question. We learn, therefore, that hadiipemieUa, F.E. (MS.) is 

 identical with hadiipenneUa, Zell., H.-S., which makes it all the 

 more difficult to understand why Duponchel's description and figure 

 apparently represent a distinct species. ' 



Again, it became evident that, if nos. 2 and 3 were to be satisfac- 

 torily separated, long series of the former, labelled with the foodplants 

 from which they were bred, would be necessary for comparison, for 

 although no. 3 appeared, on the whole, decidedly darker, it seemed im- 

 possible to say to which form some of the imagines (probably caiight) 

 belonged. 



At my request, Mons. I'Abbe J. de Joannis has kindly searched 

 in the Paris Museum, and has found a single specimen which may well 

 be regarded as Duponchel's original type of hadiipenneUa. Of its four 

 labels, one shows that it stood in Duponchel's collection, whilst 

 another reads " hadiipenneUa, f .E.," and was almost certainly written 

 by Duponchel himself, from the attribution of the name to 

 Fischer von Eoslerstamm who never rendered it valid. My corres- 

 pondent informs me that the specimen is rubbed, and has the 

 base of the fore-wing up to beyond the middle partially denuded 

 of scales ; the rest of this portion, together with the posterior 

 half of the wing and the inner margin, are of a reddish ochreous 

 colour, which corresponds very well with Duponchel's published 

 figure. Mons. de Joannis adds that the costa is distinctly yellowish 

 wliite as far as the middle, and suggests, as the probable ex- 

 planation of the omission of this characteristic from Duponchel's 

 description, original drawing, and published figure, that Duponchel, 

 noticing that the insect was somewhat worn, erroneously assumed that 

 the whitish costal stripe was due to discoloration, and that the imago, 

 when fresh, was unicolorous reddish ochreous. He fui'ther suggests 

 that, as regards the indications of paler lines on the fore- wings in the 

 original drawing, the artist may have laid rather too much stress on the 

 appearance of the rubbed portions. Mons. 1' Abbe's valuable informa- 

 tion leads us to the conclusion that Duponchel's description and 

 drawing are faulty, and that in spite of all appearances to the contrary, 

 both Duponchel and Zeller used the name hadiipenneUa for the same 

 species of Coleophora. 



As regards the further question whether hadiipenneUa, Auct. 

 Angl., is identical with hadiipenneUa, Dup., Zell., — Mons. I'Abbe de 



