1900.] 37 



When we consider his anicanella and salicolella I come to a con- 

 clusion that differs from that usually accepted, and from the synonymy 

 proposed by Bruand himself. He says his anicanella is equal to 

 hetulina, Zell. and Speyer, but adds " in lifteris," so that it seems very 

 probable he had deficient material for collating his names with Zeller's. 

 Speyer, he says, sent him two specimens labelled hetulina, Zell. Did 

 Bruand fail to compare them carefully, or had Speyer the two species 

 mixed, as may readily happen, and sent to Bruand examples of sali- 

 colella (auct.), {non Bruand) ? 



However this may be, I make no doubt that under the name of 

 salicolella he describes the species we know as hetulina, Zell., and that 

 his anicanella is the one that I have before me as salicolella, and that 

 we are supposed to know under that name. 



There is one difficulty in reversing the names or in leaving them 

 alone, viz., that Bruand distinctly describes the anal tuft of his 

 salicolella as hrun-jaiondtre clair, that of the one $ bred by Mr. Prout 

 is nearly as white as that of betulina, if not absolutely snowy, there- 

 fore, the colour given by Bruand is as diflacult to accept iov salicolella 

 as for hetulina. Bruand does not appear to have had many specimens 

 of either species, and I incline to think he got some of his female 

 specimens misplaced. 



Betulina, Zell., is larger, darker, and has more pointed wings than 

 salicolella, auct. Bruand makes salicolella 1 mm. more in expanse 

 than anicanella ; anicanella he likens to rohoricolella (nitidella) ; sali- 

 colella has the wings narrower and longer : he further says that it 

 much resembles tahulella (sepium), the wings much more lengthened 

 than in rohoricolella. The resemblance between betulina and sepium 

 males is very close indeed, and this point alone is almost sufficient to 

 identify salicolella, Br., with hetulina. Another point clearly shown 

 is that anicanella, Br., is much rarer than salicolella, Br., which again 

 corresponds with the relation of salicolella, auct., to hetulina, Zell., 

 or may refer to sep>iuni. The antennae he says are very lightly pecti- 

 nated, this character is Proutian rather than specific. 



The description of the larva of rohoricolella is rather of a Proutian 

 than a Fumeid, whilst that under salicolella is rather that of sepium. 

 I am strongly inclined here to suggest that Bruand got some of his 

 material mixed in relation to these three species. His figure of sali- 

 colella is certainly not our salicolella, but might easily be hetulina or 

 sepium ; whilst his figure of the larva is clearly that of sepium and not 

 of a Proutia. 



Bruand's figures of neuratiou rather support my conclusions, his 



