12 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



As the collecting season is now drawing near, I would again call the 

 attention of all collectors to the Rev. J. Seymour St. John's book on 

 •' Larva collecting and breeding," etc. No collector should be 

 without it. 



IgCIENTIFIC NOTES. 



Pachnobia and T.^niocampa. — As no one enters a protest against 

 Mr. Tutt replacing kucographa and rubricosa in the genus TcEniocampa, 

 I should like to say a word or two on the matter. I have practically 

 no knowledge of the literature of the subject, but I have reared all the 

 species from the egg, except gracilis, of which I have, however, taken 

 the larva very small, and alpina, which I have never seen alive in any 

 state, (i). Taniocampa lay the eggs in groups of from 20 to 50 or 

 more, in regular order, like Tripiuvna and other NuducE. Populeti and 

 opima sometimes lay them rather in a heap than in a proper manner. 

 The eggs are flattened below and rounded above, the heiglit being 

 about \ of the diameter, as if they had been spheres, but had been soft 

 and dough-like and sunk down with their own weight. They are 

 ribbed, noctua-fashion ; towards the rounded top the ribs fade into a 

 more or less hexagonal flat network, the ribs number over 45, usually 

 50 to 60. In Pachnobia the eggs are laid solitarily, flattened below, 

 they tend to be slightly pyramidal upwards and the bold ribs terminate 

 above in a raised coronet around the micropylar area. The ribs 

 number 40 to 44. (2). The larvre of Tcsniocampa feed on trees or 

 bushes ; they spin tents in which to moult and even to feed. Miniosa 

 makes a net not unlike that of Eriogaster lanestt'is on a smaller scale ; 

 gracilis lives in a tent till its last moult ; iiistabilis as a rule only makes 

 a tent to moult in ; populeti always lives between united leaves, but the 

 others abandon this habit in the last skin. Miinda and cruda have the 

 least of it. The larva; of Pachnobia live on low plants, never makes 

 any tent and much resembles a hadena or Mamestra. I have not 

 sufficiently observed the pup?e to enable me to point to any decided 

 differences of generic value; the two terminal spines arise more closely 

 together in Pachnobia than in Ticniocampa. (3). The perfect insect 

 differs in a very important respect, — one sufficient to place it in a 

 separate family rather than merely in a separate genus, viz., the wings 

 are held when at rest, de flexed in pent-house fashion by Tcenioca??ipa. 

 In Pachnobia they lie flat and cross one another. The outline of 

 the wing is different, and in setting them the hind wing appears to be 

 much more abundant and ample in Pachnobia. 



Trachea piniperda is much nearer to Ticniocampa than Pachnobia is, 

 the eggs are laid in groups, the moth sits with de'flexed wings. Indeed 

 it seems to be a true Tceniocampa somewhat modified in colouring to 

 suit its especial food ; the striping of the larva being like that of 

 goihica or instabilis, and the markings of the moth being those of a 

 Ta-niocanipa, but the colouring is such as to harmonise with the rich 

 tints of the bark of the smaller branches of Scotch fir, and the 

 shadows of the pine needles. — T. A. Chapman, Firbank, Hereford. 

 February, 1891. 



I suppose the following brief summary of some remarks made at the 



