280 THE entomologist's record. 



lent description of the imago, and cites "Vienna " and " Kegensburg " as 

 localities {Schmett. Deiitsch., iii., Heft 1, p. 147, 1870). 



In vol. xii. of his Nat. His. Tin., p. 194 (1870), Stainton gives a 

 description, under the name of putridella {i.e., the type), of the ab. 

 brnnnca of this species and figures it on plate vi., fig. 3m. His figure 

 of the larva (3a) on the same plate is very good. Perhaps the chief 

 interest in this account lies in the Latin version of the " geographical 

 distribution." This was, I believe, written by Zeller, and differs 

 slightly from those in the other languages. It is here stated that one 

 example of the species was taken many years before, near Vienna 

 [ = that in Schiflermiiller's collection] , then the insect was almost for- 

 gotten, till another example was found in the same district [ = that 

 taken by Mann] . From this it appears that, anyhow, up to 1854, 

 when Zeller wrote his monograph on the genus Deprei^saria, there were 

 only two specimens known. Even in 1861 Stainton did not possess a 

 specimen. Later it occurred commonly at Eegensburg, whence, in 

 1865, Stainton received larva? from F. Hofmann (ibid, p. 197). If this 

 be true, it follows that Hiibner's figure was taken from the actual type 

 in the Vienna collection. The larvffi of the southern form of this 

 species, var. peucedanella, and of the ab. eatcrdla, were discovered on 

 May 5th, 1880, by Baron Nolcken, Constant, and probably Milliere, 

 when these three entomologists were on an excursion in the Esterel. 

 They did not then know the name of the plant, on which the larvae 

 occurred in various sizes, but it was subsequently found to be Peitcc- 

 daninii officinale. They all took larviB, and, in the June following, 

 Nolcken bred five moths which he could not separate from D. putri- 

 della. On the other hand Milliere and Constant, both of whom had 

 also bred moths, were of opinion that they had a new species before 

 them. They probably did not know D. piitridella, and, if they only had 

 Hiibner's figure with which to compare their specimens, it is quite excus- 

 able that they failed to connect the figure with their specimens. Milliere 

 wrote to Nolcken, that he would describe and figure his moths under 

 the name of peucedanella together with a paler variety. Nolcken then 

 again examined his French specimens, but was quite unable to find 

 any specific distinction between them and fJ. putridella. He further 

 states that he received his putridella from Herrich-Schteffer himself, 

 and that, therefore, they were correctly named. He had also received a 

 dark example from Mann, as peucedani, Hofmann, in litt., which was 

 therefore also probably bred from Feucedanum. Whether or no Nolcken 

 communicated his views to Milliere does not appear {Stett. e. Zeit., p. 

 190, 1882). In due course Milliere described and figured his peucedanella, 

 as a new species, but it seems curious that, in doing so, he does not 

 even mQniion putridella, much less compare his species with that. He 

 consulted Ragonot, who also apparently ignored its identity with 

 putridella, and suggested its proper place would be between hippo- 

 marathri and cachritis. This is curious, too, because Ragonot must 

 then have known putridella, for he sent specimens to Stainton from 

 Paris, which are now in the British Museum, and are labelled " Paris, 

 Ragonot, 3/74." In his description of the larva, Milliere states that 

 the head of the full-grown larva, as well as the anal plate, is entirely 

 black. In Stainton's figure, and in all the full-grown larvae I have 

 seen, the head is ochreous. The anal shield is either black or ochreous, 

 and I think Milliere mistaken when he suggests that the ochreous- 



