] 02 [May. 



first important English notice of reputed " peliella," just previously included but 

 ■without comment in Stainton's Syst. Cat. (1849), was published in Trans. Ent. Soc. 

 Lond. V, 200 (1849), where Mr. J. W. Douglas gives a description, and adds that 

 he only knows one Britisli specimen which was taken by Mr. Stainton at Wickham. 

 His description leaves it uncei'tain whether he had peliella or xiippeliella before liim, 

 but he now says that it was taken from Stainton's Wickham example. The Stainton 

 British series of so-called "peliella'^ consists of 16 specimens arranged in two 

 parallel columns, and the individual described by Douglas must be one of the two 

 top specimens, for no others were taken before 1852. Of these two, both mounted 

 in the same early style, the left is unlabelled, while the right is labelled " 1489," but 

 since the number is unpreceded by Stainton's special " S," his note-books contain no 

 explanation of it. The latter moth, which is suppeliella, is rather worn, and from this 

 fact, and from its colour, which is not " black-brown," it is clear that the former is the 

 one described by Douglas and taken by Stainton at West Wickham in or before 1848. 

 It is in fine condition, and the position of the first discal, which lies exactly above 

 the second plical, blackish spot proves that it is suppeliella, ihow^ its ground-colour 

 is browner, more uniform, and less white-sprinkled than usual. The remaining 

 fourteen are likewise all suppeliella, the note-books showing that the second, third, 

 and fourth specimens in each column were captured at West Wickham on July loth, 

 1852, while the other eight are labelled "e./.W. Wickham, Gr. H. \_rectius, "G. W." — 

 E. R. B.] Bird, 4.4. 89." 



Lord Walsingham says (Z.c.) that Stainton's descriptions in I. B. Lep. Tin., p. Ill 

 (1854), and Nat. Hist. Tin., IX, 106-15 (1865), were undoubtedly taken from the 

 ivMQ peliella, because of the position assigned to the two important spots: with all 

 due deference to him, however, I believe that the former must have been made from 

 suppeliella, for when it was written Stainton had no true peliella, but eight British 

 and one continental suppeliella, and his remark that the upper is " hardly posterior " 

 to the lower spot, while implying that in Gelechice as a rule it is decidedly posterior, 

 is strictly applicable to these, for in one British specimen the upper spots are clearly 

 a little posterior to the lower, and on the right wing of another the upper projects 

 distinctly beyond the lower and smaller spot. Seeing that Stainton (I. B. Lep. Tin., 

 p. Ill) uses the term " rather posterior " when describing alacella, his words " hardly 

 posterior" would be quite inappropriate if referring to true peliella, in which the 

 spots stand much more obliquely. The description in Nat. Hist. Tin. was doubtless 

 based chiefly on the single G-erman peliella bred in 1859, which was the only example 

 Stainton then possessed, but it was clearly modified so as to include the suppeliella, 

 for he speaks of the upper spot as " very little posterior " to the lower, 

 although in the figure (presumably made from the same individual) it is 

 decidsdly posterior, and he obviously alludes to suppeliella in the remark 

 " caught specimens are paler and of a greyish tinge." The description in the 

 " Manual " (1859) was evidently taken from suppeliella as was also the figure 

 in Morris' "British Moths" (1870). Thanks to Mr. P. B. Mason's kindness I have 

 examined his own and Mr. J. W. Douglas' series of supposed peliella ; the former 

 consists of 11, the latter of 6 specimens, and all arc suppeliella. Four of Mr. 

 Mason's examples were bred from W. Wickham, but the history of the others is 

 uncertain : of Mr. Douglas', one was taken at Dulwich Wood, June 3rcl, 1848, four 

 at W. Wickham on June 5th, 1848, and one on July 22nd, 1853. 



