EVETRIA PINICOLANA, DBLD. 3 



species were exceptionally small, the smallest of C. Jiippothoe about 

 30mm., of L. si(balpi)ia 29mm. Krebia euryale and Brenthis 

 amathusia also appeared, but not in numbers. 



Entering the pinewood Larentia raesiata HeAV up in great 

 abu ndance, and directly one was through it Pamassius delius came career- 

 ing down the slope, whilst many of the big Pieris hramcae here looked 

 quite as large. Adkinia cuprodactyla was disturbed at almost every 

 step, as also was Enholia viensnraria and many Crambids, and a 

 lovely Pliisia fell to the net, but the rain-clouds were now collect- 

 ing all over the upper part of the valley, and as Sertig Dorfli came in 

 sight, the rain commenced to descend ; we sheltered for a time under 

 a shed and then made for the pinewood ; for more than an hour we 

 remained under a pine-tree, perfectly dry, whilst we watched the 

 antics of Larentia caedata, Er/nnelesia ericetata, and Ciawbus 

 conrliellus. They defied the rain and required no shelter ; over and 

 over again a specimen came to the edge of the pine-tree. Hew into 

 the safety of its shelter only an inch or two before returning to the 

 open and rain, with such a speed that suggested that a mistake had 

 been made ; but the clouds became denser, and the wet afternoon was 

 certain, so we faced a drenching and stepped out to do the 5 miles to 

 Davos. A warm bath and a change of clothes soon put matters 

 strnight, and, if we have little to show for our day's outing, we still 

 have happy memories of our day in the 8ertig valley. 



Evefria pinicolana, Dbld., specifically distinct from E. buoliana, 



Sclliff. {tilth plate). 

 By EUSTACE R. BANKES, M.A., F.E.S. 



In the Ent. Mo. Ma;t., ser. 2, xviii., 209-210 (1907), after giving 

 reasons for my firm conviction, which agrees with the practically 

 unanimous verdict of British lepidopterists, both past and present, 

 that F.retria pinicolana, Dbld., is specifically distinct from E. buuluina, 

 Schiff., 1 offered to supply with plenty of material any specialist who 

 would kindly undertake to compare the genitalia, thinking it not 

 improbable that these would afford definite proof that the former 

 insect could not be merely a variety of the latter, as both Meyrick 

 [HIi. Br. Lep., 470 (1895)], and Staudinger and Eebel [Cat., pp. 

 102-3, no. 1851 (1901)] , have treated it 



Fortunately for science, my friend, Mr. F. N. Pierce, was good 

 enough to offer his services, and, after various delays, due to our both 

 suffering from bad health, my hopes have been realised beyond all 

 expectation, for, in some named individuals of both sexes of these 

 species that he received from me, Mr. Pierce has found such remark- 

 able and constant differences in the genitalia, not only of the males 

 but also of the females, that they amount to proof positive that E. 

 pinicolana, Dbld., is not cospecific with E. bavliaua. The synonymy, 

 as given by Meyrick (I.e.), and by Staudinger and Rebel {I.e.), must, 

 therefore, be corrected, so as to show that pinicolana is entitled to 

 specific rank. 



My hearty thanks are due to Mr. Pierce for the great trouble he 

 has taken in the matter, and for the photographs that are reproduced 

 in the accompanying plate. These indicate clearly, in particular, 

 the striking differences in length and breadth between tiae genital canals 



