94 THE entomologist's record. 



(9). Didactyhi, Haw. No. i dealt with the Linna;an dldactyla which 

 feeds on Gemii rivale, and is not British. Haworth's didactyla (taken 

 in Norfolk) is a British species, therefore the two species of didactyla 

 are distinct. Haworth describes his species as : — " Alucita (the 

 spotted rusty plume). Alis patentibus sordide ferrugineis, fascia punc- 

 tisque albis, anticis bifidis, posticis trifidis. Habitat apud nos valdc 

 infrequens. Etiam in Com. Norf, Rev. J. Burrell." This reference 

 to Norfolk is very suggestive of distans, and the description " sordide 

 ferrugineis," could only be applied to this of our British species, 

 distans, too, is par excellence a Norfolk species. Haworth's remark, 

 after describing parviductyla, is very interesting, and affords the 

 strongest possible clue to his didactyla and heterodactyla. He writes 

 of parvidactyla : — " This is the smallest of our " Plume " moths, and 

 it is also one of the rarest. Its characters are almost exactly the 

 same as in the two preceding articles ; yet its diminutive size as a 

 species, renders it very distinct." This remark, coupled with the 

 description and locality he gives, seems to settle the species con- 

 clusively as the species we know now as distans, Zell. Of course 

 didactyla, Haw., sinks as a synonym oi distafis, Zell, there being already 

 a didactyla, Linn. 



(10). Heterodactyla, Haw. In Entomologist, xxii., pp. 139, 140, Mr. 

 Briggs discussed the priority of this name versus teucrii, and decided 

 aeainst heterodactyla. Haw., because it could not be proved that 

 Haworth's heterodactyla = Villars' heterodactyla, but although our 

 species may very questionably be Villars' heterodactyla, I do not think 

 there can be any doubt of its being Haworth's heterodactyla, which is 

 the matter we are concerned with. Even if it can be proved that 

 Haworth incorrectly used Villars' name and description, yet the new 

 use of a new author makes him responsible for this use. Now, 

 Haworth only described British species, and there is only one British 

 species with markings similar to parvidactyla, to which the descrip- 

 tion : — "Alis patentibus fissis, nigris, maculis albis," could possibly 

 apply, and that is teucrii. I quite agree with Mr. Briggs that if we 

 consider Villars' species we may well be in doubt, but if we restrict 

 ourselves to British species we can scarcely be in doubt about 

 Haworth's, The name might well read : — 



heterodactyla. Haw., Vill. (?). 

 teucrii, Greening. 

 Haworth assumed (from description) that Villars' species was the same 

 as his own, just the same as he assumed his didactyla was the Linntean 

 didactyla, which we know well now, could not have been the case 

 (because didactyla, Linn., is not a British species), yet, Haworth's 

 didactyla is British, and would replace distans, were there not already 

 another plume named didactyla, Linn. On this ground alone, there- 

 fore, Haworth's heterodact\la, which we know represents teucrii — both 

 from description and from Dr. Mason having Haworth's actual type 

 with the name attached — must in correct nomenclature, rejjlace the 

 later name of teucrii, whilst Villars' he:erodactyla, about which Mr. 

 ]'>riggs very properly expresses so much doubt, could be ignored, or 

 "Villars (?)" added after the name. 



I am afraid this is very technical, but it shows how little Dr. Wocke 

 knew of our British species, when he compiled his list, and also shows 



