SCIENTIFIC NOTi-;s. 9B 



a new difficulty was created, as undoubtedly the yeiloA'-ochreous species, 

 known to Stainton {ochrodaciy/iis), was the species known to Haworth 

 {pa/lidacfyla), neither author then having differentiated the new species 

 dichrodactylus^ Muhlig, which was afterwards referred to ochrodactyla, HI). 

 It therefore becomes pretty evident that our British name pallidactyla, 

 is prior to bertrami the new Continental name. The diagnosis of 

 Kaworth is very distinct. It is " Alucita (the pale plume) alis anticis 

 ochroleucis, nebulis aliquot saturatioribus. Expansio alarum i unc. 

 .\!3e anticK bihdfe ; posticte tripartitte fusco-ochraces." Wocke refers 

 this to ochrodactvia, Hb., = dtchrodacfyhis, Miihhg, although it is well- 

 known that Miihlig's dichrodactylus was not known in Britain until a 

 comparatively recent date. 



(6). Migadactyla, Haw. Wocke (as I have just pointed out) not only 

 refers Haworth's paUidactyla to Hiibner's ochrodactyla, but more 

 mysterious still, refers Haworth's mii!;adaciyla, a species with " white 

 wings" and "white body," to the same species. Now we have, I 

 suppose, only three species with really white wings and white body — 

 peniadactyhi, gaiadodacly/n, and spilodaciyla, two are perhaps approxi- 

 mately white, but only in the slightest degree — tetradactyla and bnlio- 

 dactyia. But Haworth describes three white species — pentadactyla, 

 gtlactodactyla^ and migadactyla. He also describes tetradactyla^ but 

 not baliodactyla. This latter species is not white, and does not agree 

 with Haworth's description: — '•'Alucita (the chalk-pit plume) alis 

 fissis albidis fusco maculatis, anticis fissis posticis tripartitis fuscis, 

 FabP " Habitat Cretacis ut valde infrequens." " Statura prteceden- 

 tium. Corpus album. Alse anticse albidae, fusco maculatae, posticse 

 fuscfe. Pedes albi, fusco maculati, FabT {Lepidoptera Britajititca, 

 p. 478). There is no British species but sptlodactyla, to which this 

 descri[)tion could reasonably apply, and Haworth's remark : " Perhaps 

 the last two {paUidactyla and migadactyla) species would more 

 naturally range immediately after galactodactyla'' applies very strongly 

 to spilodactyla. How Wocke could suppose that one of our white 

 species might possibly be synonymous with Hiibner's ochrodactyla, I 

 am perfectly at a loss to understand. The migadactyla of Haworth is 

 prior to the spilodactyla of Curtis. I have left entirely out of account 

 the Fabrician migadactyla, as there may be a white Continental (not 

 British) species to which the description might apply, but that does 

 not influence Haworth's use of the name for our species. 



(7). Calodactyla, WdiVi.^acanthodactyla, Hb. Here Wocke is correct, 

 in referring Haworth's calodactyla to Hiibner's acanthodactyla. 



(8). Piinctidactyla, Haw. Of late years this has been treated as 

 synonymous with Hiibner's cosmodactyla, but in my opinion, erroneously. 

 Wocke, of course, dropped Haworth's name as a synonym of Hiibner's 

 The two great characters of our piinctidactyla are: — (i). The green 

 colour of the wings; (2). The falcate apices of the anterior wings. I 

 have carefully studied Hiibner's cosmodactyla (figs. 35 and 36), which 

 are without the characteristic colour, and appear to represent a mucli 

 more stumpy species even than acanthodactyla. How any one can 

 make Hiibner's figures satisfy Haworth's : " Alucita. Alis anticis 

 virescenti-cinereis albido nebulosis, punctis costalibus numerosis, 

 strigatjue postica obsoleta, albis." " Aire anticte bifidoe, posticas tri- 

 parlitixi atrce ; " is beyond my comprehension 1 



