1897.] ] 03 



After critically examining nearly 100 suppeJiella, mostly bred, I find that the 

 position of the first discal spot, which is usually exactly above the second plical spot, 

 distinctly varies from a little anterior to a little posterior to it, while in peliella it 

 varies from only a little to considerably posterior to it : thus the range of position 

 is from the same point thoiagh in opposite directions in the two species. The black 

 spots, though somewhat inconstant in size, are, as a rule, larger, more blot-like, in 

 suppeliella, and its colour is less uniformly dark, owing to the presence of many 

 more whitish scales. Lord Walsingham's remark on Duponchel's original figure of 

 peliella is especially interesting, because in the published figure the upper of the 

 two most important spots is omitted, although in the description mention is only 

 made of three black spots, of which one is " near the base " and two " in the middle." 



The Rectory, Corfe Castle : 



January 4<th, 1897. 



[When describing Gelechia suppeliella [Ent. Mo. Mag. XXXII, 250-1 (1896)] 

 I was unable to examine the series of peliella in the Zeller Collection, and could 

 not thei'efore, attempt to deal with the distribution of these two closely allied species. 

 Zeller's series oi peliella consisted of 27 specimens, of which 8 are peliella and 19 are 

 suppeliella, and his specially labelled exponent of " Gelechia peliella, Tr., Dup. 297, 

 11., H-S., 484" is not that species but suppeliella. The majority of the specimens 

 are simply dated, no locality being indicated, while several have no labels whatever. 

 I am greatly obliged to Mr. McLachlan for having informed me that the specimens 

 with dates but without localities would, in the majority of cases, prove to have been 

 collected either at Grlogau or at Meseritz, and that the obituary notice of Zeller, 

 Ent. Mo. Mag., XX, 1-8 (1883) would furnish the actual dates at which he had 

 collected in various localities. With this clue little difficulty has been experienced 

 in assigning the proper locality to these merely dated specimens, and the localities 

 thus obtained for the two species from this collection are as follows — 



Gelechia peliella, Tr. (8 specimens). 1 " N. Langenau, Sd w., 12, 49 ; " 1 Meseritz 

 (= " l^jQjQS ") ; 1 Grross Glogau (=; " 24^jQjbb ") ; the remaining 5 specimens have 

 no labels. 



Gelechia suppeliella, Wlsm. (19 specimens). 3 Frankfort-on-the-Oder, or Gross 

 Glogau (=" 6/6/34 ; " "11/6/34"); 2 Gross Glogau (= "20/7/42," "6/7/56"); 

 5 Meseritz (= "28/6/62," "19/6/64," "19/7/66"); 1 Griinhof, bei Stettin 

 (="22/7/70"). Of the remaining specimens, one on a shoi't white metal pin is 

 undoubtedly of English origin, and was probably received from either Douglas or 

 Stainton, it is labelled " 112 " and " 1521 " (the " 15 " being prefixed in red pencil) ; 

 a second " Posen, Gnadenf., 1857 ; " a third " Heroldella, Zttst., Oct., 47, 56 ; " a 

 fourth " Fr., 20/6 MiJll." (?= Frankfort) ; anotlier specimen has an undecipherable 

 label, while the remaining three have no labels. 



In the Isis, 1839, 199, Zeller wrote, " Viele Exemplare, Glogau, Frankfurt." 

 Three specimens only can be identified as having been in Zeller's possession at that 

 time, and of these two are dated "6/6/34" and the third "11/6/34;" an unset 

 specimen labelled " Fr., 20/6 Miill." (the year being omittedj may have been the 

 authority for the record " Frankfurt," supposing that the other specimens captured 

 in 1834 were taken at Glogau — -but this is uncertain. 



