1897. J 77 



The absence of anal lobes ; the curious non-setiferous anal ring 

 in all stages ; the short degenerate antennae ; and grouped spinnerets ; 

 are common to all three species mentioned above ; and may be con- 

 sidered the salient generic characters of the ? . 



I am inclined to think the two-jointed tarsus of the (^ of more 

 than specific value, and that it will be found to exist in all the species 

 of this genus. Siguoret makes no reference to such a character, and 

 other authors have apparently overlooked it. 



Chester : November, 1896. 



P.S. — I have examined specimens of Aspidlotus aloes, Boisd., as 

 recorded by Mr. Green, p. 69, and fail to separate them from typical 

 A. nerii, Bouche. 



Erratum. — p. 71, for Lecanium hemisphcericum, " var. Jilicum, 

 Dougl.," read "vav.JiJicum, Boisd." 



Marc?i, 1897. 



TEPHROSIA CREPUSCULARIA AND BIUNDULARIA. 

 BY JOHN E. ROBSON, F.E.S. 



I refrained from replying earlier to my friend Mr. Barrett's comments in my 

 last note, not that I was at all shaken in my opinion, but I had not seen IMrs. 

 Bazett's specimens, and Mr. Barrett intimated that as I had not seen these, and 

 others to which he referred, I was scarcely in a position to pass judgment. Yet I 

 was not so ignorant as he assumed. I had carefully examined Mr. Tutt's lengthy 

 series, not with a cursory glance at a Society's meeting, but at my leisure in his 

 own house. I had seen a long i-ow of the second brood of crepuscularia, bred by 

 Mr. Henderson, who also sent me the females which deposited the eggs. I had 

 further had considerably over thirty years' acquaintance with biundularia in our 

 own woods. 



Now, thanks to the great kindness of Mrs. Bazett, I have before me as I write 

 the specimens which have revived this discussion. I have further had the great 

 advantage of considerable correspondence with Entomologists who are familiar 

 with these insects, and though I have not seen the foreign specimens which caused 

 Mr. Barrett to suggest there was but one species, I venture to think I am in a 

 fairly well-informed position for discussing the question. 



I must plead guilty to carelessness in writing my former communication. I 

 made Mr. Barrett say, " the second brood of biundularia were actually more tinged 

 with brown than the type,^' when he really said, " than the others^ I understood 

 him to mean that the second brood of biundularia were browner than the first 

 brood. Hence I suggested that if the grey second brood of crepuscularia were 

 "obviously" biundularia, s,o we should say the (brown) second brood oi biundularia 

 were " obviously " crepuscularia. This, it appears, was not what Mr. Barrett meant, 

 and it was the misunderstanding that led to the error. 



