112 



THE EM'OilOLOGISi S RECOKU. 



Gynandromokphous specimen of Porthetria dispar. — An example 

 of this species, bred on July 24th, 1901, with normal males and females, 

 from larvs3 received from Captain Blaydes- Thompson (Barrett's 

 strain)." The colom-, shape and markings are those of a $ but slightly 

 smaller than others of same brood. Hindwings slightly crippled — 

 right antenna 5 , left antenna similar shape, but much more heavily 

 pectinated, about half as heavily as <? . — E. F. Studd, M.A., F.E.S., 

 Oxton, Exeter. March it/i, 1902. 



Male Tephrosia isistortata pairing with female T. bistortata 

 AND T. cREPUscTJLAiiiA. — A 3" Specimen of 2'ephrosia bistortata paired 

 on February Gth, 1.S98, with ? of same species, and on February 8th 

 it copulated with y of var. ilehuiierensis, of Tephrosia crepuscidaria 

 {hiundularia), and again on February 10th with the same ? delariie- 

 rensis. ]'>oth femal(>s [bistortata and ddamerensis) laid eggs, which 

 were fertile. The parent specimens were reared from eggs and the 

 pup* forced. — Ibu). 



Distribution oe Hejl\ris fuciformis and H. tityus (bombyli- 

 FORMis). — Possibly the continuous change in the synonymy of these 

 species has had something to do with the doubt attaching to some of 

 the recorded localities for these insects. First as to H. fudfornris (the 

 honeysuckle species), Meyrick says, "Britain to Sutherland, rather 

 common." This in my experience is nonsense, possibly Mr. Meyrick will 

 answer that this opinion is simplyduetoinyignorance, which is probably 

 the correct explanation of my present position. The only Scotch records 

 I can unearth, however, are the following: Dumfries (Lennon)^ 

 Renfrew, very rare [Paisley Xat. Hist. Soc. Record Bool;), Roxburgh, 

 llawick dist., rare — Goldielands (Guthrie^, and I suspect not one of 

 these records refers to o\w fuciformis. There are two records from Cum- 

 berland — Orton, Salkeld, common (Wilkinson) ; and one from Cheshire 

 — Bidston, scarce (Brockholes). Do these refer to fuciformis .'' Other- 

 wise Yorks, Lincoln, Northampton, Notts, Leicester and Warwick form 

 the northern boundaries of this species in the British Islands, which 

 appears also to be unrecorded from Ireland. Second, as to H. tityus 

 (the scabious species), Meyrick says, " Britain to the Clyde, Aberdeen,. 

 Ireland, rather common." We have records, not only from Aberdeen, 

 but from Argyle, Nairn, Perth, Stirling, as well as Wigton, Roxburgh 

 and Renfrew. Strangely, only three Welsh counties, Glamorgan, 

 Merioneth and Montgomery, give us records, yet one suspects that it 

 is widely distributed there. There are now so many excellent lei^i- 

 dopterists in Scotland that one ought to have little difficulty in getting 

 the necessary evidence as to the occurrence of //. fuciformis in the 

 recorded localities, Avhilst the north of England lepidopterists should 

 be able at once to say whether Cheshire and Cumberland do 

 really produce, or have produced, H. fuciformis. I should be most 

 grateful for the slightest scraps of information relating to the occur- 

 rence of these species in any part of Britain. — J. W. Tutt. 



Erratum. — Page GG, line 15, for " numerous " read " enormous. 



* We are in doubt as to what "Barrett's strain" of Porthetria dispar means. 

 We can only say we are among those who do not believe in any British strain of 

 this species. We questioned the matter more than a dozen years ago, when it 

 was clear from the evidence that nothing of the kind was then in existence in 

 Britain. — Ed. 



