72 THE entomologist's record. 



and incomplete as far as the statements in question are concerned. 

 I am very sorry i should have been so careless, making such a stupid 

 blunder. The article in December, 1904, number of the EiUomoloiiist 

 on Clania lewinii (a species similar in habits to E. vinohilis) is the 

 result of very careful study with plenty of material and patience. 1 

 do not think it will be necessary to modify any of my statements, 

 further careful research will tell though. I have never seen BritiHh Lepi- 

 doptera, vol. ii, mentioned in the criticism in the b^ntotnolouist's Record. 

 — Frank M. Littler, Althorne, High Street, Launceston, Tamania. 

 January Hit.h, 1904. [So far as we understand this, Mr. Littler throws 

 the responsibility of these errors partly on the editor of his papers in 

 the Eiitomoluiii.st. " the note containing statements contrary to his 

 belief," and partly to his own errors of transcription, his remarks 

 being mixed with those of Prof. McCoy, but his later paper referred to 

 seems as unsatisfactory as his first, and his letter shows our recent 

 criticism {aiiteu, p. 54), to be fully warranted. Mr. Littler admits care- 

 lessness, but our idea is that such obvious errors should not be 

 printed at all in our British magazines. They reduce science to 

 absurdity whoever may be responsible. — Ed.] 



Lachneis lanestris, condition during pupal state. — It may be well 

 to complete the history of the pupag referred to, Ent. llec, vol. xiv., 

 p. 123, line 8. The last of the four pupae there noted (pupated 1901) 

 was still alive and quite undeveloped last summer. Yesterday I 

 examined it, and found it to have the imago fully developed, so 

 brought it into a warm room, when, this morning, a 9 emerged and 

 fully developed its wings. — T. A. Chapman, M.D., Betula, Reigate. 

 Et'bniary otii, 1905. 



The hybernatino stage ov Adkinia zophodactylus. — Is Erythraea 

 ceatauriuiH an annual ? My bookshelves only provide seven author- 

 ities, most of them rather ancient — Lindley, Hooker, Brewer, 

 Wood, etc. All these say it is an annual except Ardouini in the 

 Flore ries Alpes Maritiniea, which says it is biennial. I have a dim 

 recollection of knowing their winter rosettes when I was a student, 

 and, at Hereford, seeds sown did not come to flower till the second 

 year. I tried to make the matter out this summer, and with these 

 authorities before me, failed to find anything to contradict them. 

 However, Mr. Tutt having raised the question again, and as he 

 possesses that instinct which is often right, though unable to give a 

 reason, but no doubt founded on forgotten observations, I made a 

 special investigation this afternoon (December 81st, 1904), that the 

 matter might be cleared up before the year expired. Last September I 

 found a place where Eryt/naea rentaurudii was very abundant, but 

 no trace of Adkinia wpi'todactylu.'^, and after a good search I failed 

 tofindhybernating rosettes of the Erytliraeu. To-day, however, I was 

 more successful ; I found half-a-dozen rosettes of the plant, such as those 

 of which I had a dim recollection. I further examined a number of 

 dead plants that had flowered last season, some of these were very 

 large and branched and eluded me in what I looked for, but some of 

 the smaller and simpler specimens distinctly showed, at ground level, 

 a thickening with crowded leaf scars, the position in fact of last 

 winter's rosettes ; of course, if the smaller plants had hybernated the 

 larger must have done so. January 1st, 1905. — To-day I looked at 

 my hybernating plume moths — Kmv\eli)ui immodartyla appears to 



