DEPRESSARIA PUTRIDELLA, SCHIFF. 279 



true putridella of the Vienna Cotalof/ue by seeing the Schiffermuller 

 collection {Linu. Ent., 1854, p. 219). He further states that Fischer 

 found other Depressariids in the collection {np. cit., p. 334 and p. 342). 

 Fischer himself, writing from Vienna, in 1842, states that he recog- 

 nises in the remains of a specimen then in the collection, the Tineid, 

 Ochseyxhewieria taiirella, and says that Hiibner's fig. 188 is not that 

 species, but vacculella {Strtt. Ent. Zeit., 1842, p. 205). This proves 

 that Fischer saw the collection and compared the specimens with 

 Hiibner's figures, and we may, therefore, accept Zeller's statement 

 concerning Hiibner's figure of putridella. Illiger, m the second 

 edition of the Vienna Catalogue, 1801 (p. 100), mentions the species 

 and cites Hiibner's figure. He did not know the species in nature, 

 and, therefore, places a \ against it. Charpentier evidently saw the 

 species in Schiftermiiller's collection, as he makes no note to the 

 contrary against the name (Charp., Z.W.S., &c., 1821, p. 80). 

 Although Herrich-Schaefter in mentioning the species adds " Mus. 

 ScJiiff'.," he gives only a meagre account of the species, because, as he 

 says, he only knew it from a figure, received from Fischer von Roes- 

 lerstamm. Indeed, he goes so far as to say, " the position of this 

 species is very insecure, it should rather be disregarded altogether." 

 His figure, probably reproduced from that by Fischer, who possibly 

 drew it from the specimen in Schift'ermiiller's collection, is very fair. 

 The central shade, however, is curiously broken up into three parts, 

 the last not reaching much beyond the white discoidal spot, the hind- 

 wings are much too pale at the anal angle {Sys. Bearb. Sc/nnett. v. 

 Europa, vol. v., p. 120, pi. 62, fig. 450). As we shall see later, 

 Herrich-Schaeffer afterwards became better acquainted with this 

 species. It seems probable that the first German specimens were 

 taken at Regensburg, and that the food-plant was discovered there. 



Zeller gives an excellent description of the species {Linn. Ent.,. 

 vol. ix., p. 218, 1854) from the only specimen he had seen, a maJe 

 from Mann's collection, taken near Vienna. He discusses both Hiib- 

 ner's and Herrich-Schaeffer's figure, and comes to the conclusion that, 

 as both differ from the specimen he describes, the species probably varies 

 somewhat. As Zeller only cites "Austria," and had only one specimen 

 before him, it would seem that the species was, even then, only known 

 from the Vienna district. It seems also probable that when Zeller wrote 

 this description he had not then decided on the order in which the 

 species should follow each other in his monograph, and that he had 

 contemplated placing D. putridella immediately after D. unibellana. 

 For the opening paragraph commences with the words " Viel kleiner 

 als die vorige," and offers other points of distinction. This paragraph 

 evidently refers, not to the preceding species, which is D. nanatella, 

 Stt., but to I), vnihellana, and agrees well with Zeller's remarks {op. 

 cit., p. 210). In the second paragraph, he says, " size of culcitella or 

 nanatella. Thorax darker than in unibellana." This is further 

 evidence in the same direction. Roessler mentions that one specimen 

 was taken, in August, near Wiesbaden {Verz. Schmett. Nassau, p. 230, 

 1866). In the second edition of this work {Schuppenjlii(/ley, p. 283, 

 1881) he states that the species is rare, and that, according to Ernst 

 Hofmann, the larA^a feeds on P. officinale, in tubular dwellings at the 

 ends of the leaves. The imago seldom observed {Verz. Schmett. Halle, 

 p. 87, 1869). Von Heinemann, in his usual manner, gives an excel- 



