36 [February, 



teunae, and he accompanies it with a query as to whether salicolella is 

 a good species. I have not succeeded in coming across one of the 

 salicolella taken by Mitford, the one in Dr. Mason's collection is, as 

 noted by Mr. Barrett, betulina : so the matter would, so far as I am 

 concerned, have remained a blank, had not Mr. Prout bred a male and 

 female this year from cases collected at Epping. Now all 1 am pre- 

 pared positively to assert about these specimens is. that they are 

 Proutiee, and are abundantly distinct from betulina, and that they 

 agree fairly well with the specimen sent me by Staudinger. 1 have 

 only seen one other specimen of the same species, this is in Dr. 

 Mason's collection, and is one of four specimens labelled betulina, the 

 other three are betulina ; it is not of Mitford's setting. I see no 

 reason to doubt its being a British specimen. 



These salicolella differ from betulina in being smaller, rather moi'e 

 round winged, a little paler in colour perhaps, and structurally in 

 having 26 instead of 21 joints to their antennae. The female differs 

 in having the clear spots on the abdominal plates on segments 3, 4, 5 

 and 6, instead of on 2, 3, -i and 5 as in betulina. 



So much for facts: here is a Proutia certainly distinct from 

 betulina ; is it salicolella, Bruand ? 



It is necessary, in order to determine satisfactorily how this matter 

 stands, to deal with Bruand's th.vQQ ^^Qoie^ roboricolella, anicanella and 

 salicolella. 



Heylaerts identifies ruboricolella with befulijia, Zell. This seems 

 to be incorrect, as Bruand states that it makes a case with straws, and 

 that it is the nitideUa of the Paris Museums and of Godart and Dup. 

 We have in England adopted the name for the darkest specimens of 

 our commonest Fumea, and Bruand says it is the commonest of the 

 genus round Paris. So far, then, Heylaerts seems to be in error, and 

 roboricolella is not a Proutia {betulina or other), but a Fumea. But, 

 then, Bruand describes the female as having white anal wool. Heylaerts 

 is no doubt right in regarding this character as definitely Proutian. 

 I have not seen any Fumea female with white wool, as white wool is 

 understood in Proutics. Some Fumea; have it very pale, but still it is 

 brown or tinted and not white. 



There can be little doubt, then, that roboricolella, Bruand, as 

 regards the male, represents our commonest South of England Fumea. 

 Whether, as regards the female, we are to suppose that Bruand made 

 some error of specimens and got betulina ? amongst his roboricolella, 

 or was not too careful as to the precise tint he should describe as 

 white, 1 am unable to guess. 



