REMARKS ON MR. NEWBERy's FINAL ARTICLE. 48 



British Isles, and we do not see that Mr. Newbery has any justification 

 for his statement that the specimen tai\en in Wales, at Llangollen, 

 was some other species. What evidence has Mr. Newbery for this 

 statement ? 



Hyjiera eluniiata, Pk. — It may be pointed out in regard to Hypera 

 lionijata, that not only did one of us record it [Ent. Record, vol. 

 xii., p. 334), but it was exhibited at the Entomological Society, and 

 was carefully compared by the museum authorities with an authentic 

 European specimen of this species, and it was taken under conditions 

 which make the supposition of its being an introduced species 

 absolutely impossible. 



Tlinioijems scirrhnsus, Gyll. — Why does Mr. Newbery say that the 

 localities, or most of them, given by Canon Fowler for T/iri/oiiciu's 

 srirrhtiKus apply to another species ? Mr. Bennett, and both of us with 

 him, have taken the species fairly commonly at the Pevensey marshes, 

 and, therefore, we are by no means agreed that the species is exceed- 

 ingly rare ; it is perfectly distinct, and when the genuine species is 

 obtained there can be no confusion between it and the allied species. 



Dori/ti)))ins a[linifi, Pk. — Our authority for this species is Mr. 

 Walton {Ann. <i'- Ma;/. Xat. Hist., 1844), who gives a full description of 

 the insect, and a statement as to its differences from alHed species ; 

 the record, therefore, of its capture is trustworthy, and as it was 

 introduced b}- a man like Walton, whose speciality was the Curculi- 

 onidii", it would have been absurd for us to have rejected it, and we 

 fail 10 see that Mr. Newbery's statement that he cannot find a trust- 

 worthy record has any justification. 



Anthommutx ronspennis. Dash. — The record for this species appears 

 to us conclusive as to its being distinct from its allies, and it muse be 

 retained, at any rate for the present, until there is more definite 

 evidence upon the point. 



Anthonoiniis britannns, Desb.— This appears to us to rest on too 

 doubtful evidence to justify its retention in the catalogue. 



lilit/nroliis iiracilis, Rosen. — Surely the fact that Mr. Blatch recorded 

 Iihynrolna ;iiarilis, settled without doubt that it is a British species, 

 and, therefore, we fail to see that it was necessary to wait until 

 Mr. Willoughby Ellis had retaken it, before we could safely include it 

 in the catalogue. 



(.'I'Kthor/ii/nr/iidiiis /iidrinatiis, Gyll. — As regards the two species 

 / '(ntth<>r/n/nc/iidii(s jnilriuatnx and ( '. in/rr/ior/iijncliiis, there is a specimen 

 of the former in the Bates' collection, taken by Blatch, which is the 

 true jiulrinatiis : we agree with Mr. Newbery that the characters 

 usually given for the separation of the two species are not trust- 

 worthy, but a catalogue was not the place in which to discuss a point 

 of this character. 



Pidyiira/diua piihesccns, Bach. — If ]\lr. Newbery has any definite and 

 accurate information with reference to Mr. Lawson's record of the 

 capture of I'nli/nrapltiis jiKbescenn, then he ought to give it; a mere 

 statement that he has reason to think that there is some error is rjuite 

 vahieless in such a matter ; Mr. Newbery must have some grounds 

 for his thinking that there is an error, and these grounds should be 

 given or else such a renuirk should not be made. 



('r!iiit(dii/p)iiis pidrlirlliis, Ij. — This was determined by Dr. Sharp; 

 it has not to our knowledge been retaken since, mainly, we believe, 



