238 [October, 



pursuit. Here Protasis fflitzeUa, tStgr., was abundant, with Phalonia 

 roseofasclana, Mn., ivfaviana, Knl, Pliarmncis meridiana, Stgr., Loxo- 

 perci torne/Ifi,'Whm.,iiml a Phalonia allied to lanrjuidana, Mn., caught 

 and bred from TIrlicliri/s2im. Pracliodes cassandrella, St^^r., which can 

 scarcely be considered more than a geographical subspecies of verneiella, 

 Gn. (although I could undertake to separate them at sight), Tinea 

 simpUcella, IIS., singly as usual, clirysopterella, HS., very abundant 

 locally, a Tineola distinct from but closely allied to crassicornella, Z., 

 also abundant, Nemafois alhicilienus, Stgr., Cerostomn j)ersicella, Schiff., 

 some good Deprcssarice and Gelecliiadce, including the conspicuous 

 Enolmis ratella, HS., and Stomoptcryx deterseUn, Z., Pterolonche 

 pnlveriilenta, Z., and Mcr/acrasppdus doJoseJlus, Z., a new species of 

 Didactylota which I had previously met with in the Pyrenees, Metz- 

 nrria npriJella, HS., Lrcithocera pallicorneUa, Stgr., already recorded 

 from the same locality, Pleurota heydenreicliiella, HS., which is now 

 (rightly or wrongly?) sunk as a variety of Itonorella, Hb., and other 

 species of the same genus about which I must equally reserve my 

 opinion for the present. Larva; of ColeopJtora sjniviosena, Stgr., on 

 Dorycnitim sv.[fruticnsum, the rare soJenella, Stgr., on Artemisia and 

 ononideJta, Mill., both less abundant here than in the Pyrenees. 

 Coleopliora vrstalella, Stgr., caught and bred from the larger of two 

 cases on Antliyllis cytisoides ; here I bred also a different species from 

 the smaller cases, corresponding exactly to a series taken among the 

 same plant at Malaga, where they were very abundant. Micropteryx 

 isohasella, Stgr., of which I did not previously possess males — the 

 male has a distinct purple mark at the base of the fore-wings which 

 is consistentl}^ absent in the female, thus exactly reversing the rule in 

 caltJieJIa, L. Micropteryx imp er feet ell a ^ S^^gr., to wliich a peculiar 

 history attaches — two species were mixed in Staudinger's series, and 

 after rightly describing one of them {imperfectella No. 1) be 

 amended his description in 1860, referring to Herrich-Schiiffer's figure 

 as correctly illustrating his species. I was fortunate enough to meet 

 with both forms, one at Tangier the other at Granada. They are un- 

 doubtedly distinct, but the original description must be taken to fix 

 the name in its application to No. 1, and Herrich-Schaffer's figure 

 (n. Schm., fig. 113) plus Staudinger's description of ionperfectella No. 

 2 requires a new name, and jacobella, n. n., seems to fit the case. 

 [Experience teaches that it is unwise to delay the correction of an 

 error when drawing attention to it, and that it is better to apply than 

 merely suggest a new name.] LitliocolJelis joviella, Cnst., may also be 

 worth mentioning as not hitherto recorded from Spain, BryopJtaya deli- 



