i8!ir.] 79 



not brown like the earlier brood, still have this marking clearly double, and the 

 outer line well defined. Only one of the biundularia has this outer line at all 

 distinct, and this not nearly so much so as the least distinct of the others. But if 

 there is not a guide enabling us always to separate the specimens, I must still 

 demur to Mr. Barrett's conclusion. Will he " undertake always to separate the two 

 species " in C. russata and immanata, in A. tritici and aquilina, or tritici and cur- 

 soria from the wing markings only, and many more might be named ? Surely in 

 these days of X rays we are not to assert that what we cannot see is not there. I 

 may perhaps be allowed to point out another difference in Mrs. Bazett's series, 

 and leave others to see if the distinction is constant. Melanic specimens of both 

 species occur, and Mrs. Bazett has examples of both. In melanic biundularia the 

 subterminal line is clearly and distinctly shown as a serrated white line on all 

 wings. In her melanic crepuscularia the line is there, but not nearly so distinct, 

 it is more like a series of short dashes than a continuous line. Mr. Barrett 

 describes a melanic specimen in Mr. Day's series, of which he says it is " smoky- 

 black, without markings, except that the subterminal white line is distinct on all 

 the wings," thus agreeing with Mrs. Bazett's examples of the same form. 



There is much more that could be said, but my remarks have already reached 

 an inordinate length, and I have not been able to condense them. 



Hartlepool : Fehruary l^th, 1897. 



[This controversy must now cease. It can be re-opened at a future date should 

 any very important new facts come to hand. — Eds.] 



TINEA COCHYLIDELLA, Stn., AN ABERRATION OP T. RURI- 

 COLELLA, Stn. 



BY EUSTACE R. BANKES, M.A., F.E.S. 



Among the original types of Tineina in the collection formed by 

 Mr. J. W. Douglas, which, through the hospitality of the owner, Mr. 

 Philip B. Mason, I have been able to examine at leisure, and about 

 which I hope to contribute future notes, one of the most interesting 

 is the still unique specimen described by Stainton in Ins. Brit. Lep. 

 Tin., p. 32 (1854), as Tinea cochylidella, n. sp. Stainton there gives 

 the month of capture as " June," but the reference number " 4758 " 

 on the pin of the insect is shown by Mr. Douglas' diary to mean that 

 it was taken at Sanderstead by himself on July 7th, 1852. As the 

 result of a very careful examination made last spring, I have no 

 hesitation in saying that it is a strongly aberrant specimen of T. 

 ruricolella, Stn., and that the synonymy should therefore be : — 

 Tinea ruricolella, Stn , Syst. Cat., p. 7 (1849). 



ab. cochylidella, Stn., I. B. Lep. Tin., p. 32 (1854). 



The moth, which is a male in fine condition, agrees absolutely in 



