NOTES ON COLLECTING, ETC. 209 



bajularia, probably common, though only two examples were taken, 

 on account of the high flying habits of this species. Hemiikca 

 thy77iiaria was common at dusk. Ephyra trilinearia was not uncom- 

 mon among beech. Cabera exanthe?naria and C. piisaria, common in 

 wood rides at dusk. Macaria alternaia, one specimen in a pine wood. 

 M. liturata, common in pine woods. Bupalus piniaria, still about, 

 though mostly worn. Lomaspilis Jiiargmata, one specimen at dusk. 

 Of the Eiipithecice, linariata, sobrinata^ vulgaia, centaureata, and 

 coronata were to be taken on fences. Thera firinata, one specimen 

 amongst pines. Melanthia ocellata and Melanippe mojitatiata were 

 common at dusk. Cidaria falvata, occasionally amongst dog rose. 

 Pelurga comifnta, one specimen at light. Euholi i palumbaria and E. 

 mensuraria were both common, the former on the heath, the latter in 

 grassy openings of woods. Ypsipetes elutata was very common, by day 

 and night, and one or two nice varieties were taken. Hyria auroraria 

 was not uncommon on the heaths. 



It will be seen that the great blank in the foregoing list is in the 

 NocTU^, and this is on account of the absolute failure of sugar — 

 indeed, I have seen only one insect on sugar this year. What the cause 

 of this failure is I am at a loss to explain, for it is not only in this one 

 district that it does not answer, but wherever I make inquiries it is 

 always, " Sugar is not a bit of good." It is not, I would venture to say, 

 because there are no NoCTUiE about, for I saw plenty of common 

 species, such as Tripluv.na promiba, Cosinia irupezi/ia, Xylophasia 

 polyodon, etc., on the wing ; but even they did not come to the 

 bait. Neither is it solely on account of the attractive power of lime 

 bloom, for it was a similar state of things before that tree flowered. 

 Sugar failing, our night work then was confined to dusking and attract- 

 ing what species we could to light, but even by these means we did not 

 take anything like the number of species that we ought to have taken. 



One day each was devoted to working for Hesperia lineola and 

 Zyg(zna »ieliloti, but both expeditions were failures. Larvae, too, were 

 very scarce. Gonepteryx rhamni was common on the buckthorns, and 

 Saturnia carpini, Bombyx ri(bi\ Anarta ?nyrtilli, and Cidaria testata 

 were to be swept out on the heath. A friend told us that where he had 

 taken as many as sixty larvae of Asphalia ridens in 1888, there was 

 not a single one this year ! 



On the whole, I must say that though I am very glad of those insects 

 that I did take, I think this season must rank far below the average. — 

 James A. Simes, 4 Cricketfield Road, Lower Clapton, N.E. 



Isle of Man. — I sugared nightly in the woods at Trumode near 

 Douglas, from the iSth to the 21st of June this year; but only took 

 two TriphcE7ia pronuba, and one Agrotis exclamationis. The nights were 

 mild, with a warm breeze blowing. At the same place, the previous 

 year, and on the same dates, insects simply swarmed. Although sugar- 

 ing has proved a failure here this year, the season proved an exception- 

 ally good one for Dianthcccia cccsia and D. capsopJiila. Of these 

 insects, I took a number of fine specimens. Cirrhocdia xerampelina 

 did not appear this August in profusion, to my knowledge only eight 

 specimens were taken. — H. SHORTRionE Clarke, 2, Osborne Terrace, 

 Douglas, Isle of Man. October ^th, 1890. 



Essex. — On the August Bank Holiday this year, I made an excursion 



C 



