264 [November, 190f>. 



"69" and " 55," respectively) not explained in Stainton's notebooks,* 

 agreed with Douglas' description, and were clearly the original type 

 specimens: the mounting-pin o£ the second also bore Stainton's 

 written label " vicinella.'" These, which happened to be (^ and $ , 

 as shown by the bodies and the frenula, were at once recognised as 

 being, without any shadow of a doubt, rather pale and more or less 

 badly worn examples of Gelechia leiicomelanella, Zi. It follows, 

 therefore, that vicinella, Dgl., sinks as conspecific with leucomflan- 

 ella, 7i., but the former name may be retained in a varietal sense for 

 the rather lighter form of the insect, in which the ground-colour is 

 browner. I may mention, that in the ^ type of vicinella, the white 

 markings are not particularly clearly defined. 



When describing vicinella (I.e.), Douglas only compared it with 

 contigua, H\v., Dgl. (= fricolorella, Hw.), and fraternella, Dgl., being 

 obviously unacquainted with any other form of leiicomelanella, that 

 species not being recognised as British until 1858 (Ent. Ann., 1859, 

 pp. 150 — 151). Douglas' own series of vicinella consists of three 

 individuals : these are labelled with reference numbers, which, as 

 explained by his MS. diaries, mean that the first was received from 

 Mr. Sircom, apparently without data, on July 4th, 1849, while the 

 second was captured by Douglas on Brighton beach on August 15th, 

 1853, and the third, also taken at Brighton, was received from 

 Mr. Hemmings on July 5th, 1854. All three are pale examples of 

 leucomelanella, the first and the second being both much wasted, but 

 the species is not otherwise represented in his cabinet, nor indeed is 

 the name " leucomelanella " to be found therein. Douglas himself, in 

 his notice of O. celerella (Dgl. MS.), Stn., in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 

 n.s., i., 244 (1852), wi'ote as follows ; — " This species may possibly 

 prove to be identical with my G. vicinella (p. 102), of which the 

 specimens [i. e. the two type specimens in the Stainton collection. 

 — E. li. B.] were not fine": but, as a matter of fact, celerella is 

 totally distinct from vicinella. 



Both Stainton [Man. ii, 339 (1859)] and Meyrick [RB. Br. Lep., 

 586, 596 (1895)] give distinctions between leucomelanella and vicinella, 

 but these have no specific value whatever. A long and close 



* The numbered series of named individuals, elevated on pith mounts supported by ex- 

 tremely long foreign pins, to which the second specimen only belonged, was pi-esumably 

 I^repared for loan to some continental Lepidopterist. 1 expect that the key to the numbers 

 used in this series was a mere list of the generic and specific names of the various si^ecies 

 represented, all of which had j)robably been described by British authors. Curiously enough, 

 "55" is the number assigned to vicinella by fStainton in Ins. Biit., Lep. Tin., 125 (1854), but 

 that this work does not supply the missing key is proved by the fact that a reputed example 

 of occ//afe(/a, belonging to this same series, is numbered "56" [(/. Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, v, 

 128 (1894)], whereas this number is allotted to hubneri in the monograph in question. — E. R. B. 



