REVISION OF THK EUROPEAN ALUCITIDES. 253 



but that, like most other unscientific workers, I thought that I could get 

 the material again at any time or that I should never want it. Still, 

 there is no country in the world that has so many good field-lepidop- 

 terists, and nowhere is more generosity shown in getting and giving 

 material for scientific work, and I have no doubt that in twelve months' 

 time, with average luck, most of the material wanted will have been 

 made available. Living (or preserved) material — eggs, larvae, and 

 pupye — should be sent direct to Dr. Chapman (Betula, Reigate) or Mr. 

 Bacot (154, Lower Clapton Road, N.E.), who, one can safely say, will 

 make as much out of it as anyone engaged in our study possibly can, 

 and not direct to me, as at best I am only a muddler at these little larvje. 



The species of which one feels the earlier stages ought to be better 

 known are as follows : — Trichn/itilKs j/aliuluin (known in the imaginal 

 stage to the Rev. 0. P. Cambridge for years), I'latniitilia tesscradactijla 

 (known alive as British only to Mr. Kane and the Irish lepidopterists), 

 O.njiitibis (lisfaus (known to Mr. Norgate and Lord Walsingham), 

 (). pihixellae (known to Mr. Sydney Webb), Aciptilia tetrad act i/la 

 (partly worked out by Mr. Porritt and Mr. Bankes). A. tetradactyla and 

 A. haliodacti/la are on the Kentish chalk-hills, two of the very commonest 

 species, yet I believe I am right in saying that Messrs. Bower, Fenn, and 

 myself, who have worked ground where they occur freely for many years, 

 have never come across the larva? or pupae. Still more abundant in Kent, 

 perhaps, is 0.ri/ptili(s parmkn'tt/la, yet we are not sure that any British 

 lepidopterist has ever seen its egg, larva or pupa. We ourselves are 

 anxious that our northern lepidopterists — Mr. Home, Mr. Dalglish, Mr. 

 Routledge (and his Carlisle friends), etc. — should get us larvae of the 

 FlattiptiUa, allied to bertrami, which is said to feed in ragwort (Senecio), 

 and which is possibly distinct, whilst, in the same group, only one of 

 those lepidopterists who get larvae of P. mnlactyla can compare it with 

 those of F. bertrami on the one hand, and A. acanthodacti/la on the 

 other, to see whether these species really are, as some first-class entomolo- 

 gists aver, to be placed in the same genus. Mr. Austen, of Folkestone, 

 used to breed 1\ tetterstedtii, L. osteodactitla, L. tephradacttjla and 

 L. niicrodacti/la freely, and we have hopes that Mr. Purdey or some 

 other of our south-eastern collectors may help us here. It is very 

 doubtful from the larval habits whether L. lieniiiianm and L. tnicro- 

 dacti/la have any generic connection with L. oste(jdactijla and 

 L. tephradactijla, and comparison of the early stages has to be made. 

 Similarly, the connection between A. jtentadactyla and A. tctradacti/la 

 appears to be rather far-fetched. A comparison of the larvae of M. 

 fuHciis (on Veronica) with those of M. bipiinctidacti/la (on Scabiosa) and 

 M. zop/iodacti/la (on Knjthraea) is also much wanted. It is clear that 

 work of this kind is only to be successfully accomplished by an 

 accumulation of energy, on the species desired, by many lepidopterists. 

 We are sure of the help of our best micro-lepidopterists, but is it too 

 much, we wonder, to ask those collectors who go for the same local 

 species of macro-lepidoptera every year to direct their attention to the 

 plumes for a season, and to give the usually collected species a rest ? 

 Even if only fresh localities for the species are added, we shall be 

 very thankful, and the facts will be duly published. At any rate, help 

 is urgently needed. 



At the same time, we would urge our continental-dwelling friends 

 to help us. Perhaps Mr. Lambillion, Mr. Dupont, Mr. Bourgeois, 



