180 [July. 



The next species mentioned, a dull coloured EnpoeciUa (Stn., Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., VIII, 233), was almost certainly Phalonia pudorana, Stgr., 

 common among Solidago, on which the larva feeds. 



Of the Lozopera n. sp. ? (Stn., Ent. Mo. Mag., VIII, 233), I 

 bred a good series from ElcBOselimim meoides. It was described by 

 me as Lozopera (XLoxoperd) mauritanica [Ent. Mo. Mag., XXXIV, 

 73 (1898)]. 



Among the Tineinn (Stn., Ent. Mo. Mag., VIII, 1^'^—Q>),Soleno- 

 hia pretiosa, Stn.. is extremely common ; so are 31icropteryx imperfect- 

 ella, Stgr.. Platyedra vilella, Z., Elacliistn sppulchrelln, Stn., and 

 LitJiocolletis tanrjerensis, Stn., the latter was said to have been beaten 

 from Coronilla at the Marshen, and was suspected to feed on that 

 plant, but the conspicuous shrub so abundant there is Ci/tisus lini- 

 folius, not a Coronilla. Should any one choose to call it Genista 

 linifolia I take refuge in excusable ignorance of the limits of botanical 

 qenera. 



The larva of Lithocolletis tangerensis feeds in the small narrow 

 leaves of this plant in great abundance. Here again I may remark 

 that the plant is very like an Adenocarpus, and the insect is iiearly 

 allied to, although distinct from, adenocarpi, Stgr. 



I did not meet with Tischerin complanella, Hb., at Tangier, hut a 

 suffused form of marginea, IIw., from hedges where Ruhus occurs is 

 not uncommon ; the typical mnrginea is absent, but I can only regard 

 its representative as a variety. 



Leioptilus carplio dactyl us, Hb. (Stn., Ent. Mo. Mag., VIII, 23G), 

 identified from a worn specimen, was not improbabl}'^ a species found 

 very commonly in the larval state in one very damp locality on Gibel- 

 el-Kebir. T collected a number of larvae, but bred only one good 

 specimen. It fed in shoots of young plants of Solidago, and of 

 another plant (also very young and therefore not identified) from the 

 same spot. This is possibly Pteroplwrus scarodacfylus, Hh., hut seems 

 to differ in having three dorsal and one apical spot on the tornal lobe 

 of the fore-wings, and one dorsal on the costal lobe before the apex. 

 The larva greatly resembles that of scarodactglus in shape and mark- 

 ings, so much so as to prevent me from taking the responsibility of 

 describing it as new, although it should be easily recognised from 

 bred specimens. 



Coleophora ccpspititiella, Z. (Stn., Ent. Mo. Mag., VIII, 235). 

 This identification may of course be correct, but after the careful 

 observations published by Dr. Wood, resulting in the separation and 

 description of other species, hitherto confused with it in European 

 collections, it would not be safe to accept it. 



