64 THE entomologist's record. 



emerged last year, one has just appeared. The imagines are not at all 

 like C. verbasci but they are very much like C. lych?titts, although 

 perhaps rather larger and more coarsely scaled, but still it would be 

 difficult to distinguish them in the imago state. The three species are 

 well distributed and definitely distinguished on the Continent (principally 

 in the larval stage), where scrophidar'm appears to be the commonest. 

 Dr. Staudinger gives the following as their distribution : — " C. verbasci, 

 Central and Southern Europe, Southern Sweden, Livonia, Asia Minor, 

 and Armenia." " C. scrophularice. Central Europe, Southern Sweden, 

 Livonia, Piedmont, Corsica, North part of the Balkan District, and 

 Southern Russia." " C. lychnifis, Germany, France, South England, 

 Corsica, Southern and Western Russia." By this it will be seen that 

 verbasci and scrophularicR each spread equally north, but that scrophdaricR 

 has a more southern range, whilst lychnifis is far more restricted and 

 more decidedly a southern species. Britain therefore comes well into 

 the area of distribution of both the former species. I find on reference 

 to the Entomologist, vol, ix., pp. 259-260, that Mr. Harwood quotes 

 from a letter of the late Mr. H. Doubleday as follows : — " Cucullia 

 verbasci and C. scrop/n/larice are as distinct as any two species of the 

 genus; but I believe that few English entomologists are acquainted 

 with the latter species, which appears to be very scarce in this country at 

 the present time. The Rev. A. H. Wratislaw, of Bury St. Edmunds, 

 found a brood of larva three years since, but he has not met with them 

 again. M. Constant says it is sometimes abundant in autumn and then 

 disappears for several years. I sent three or four larvae to Mr. Buckler, 

 and bred a few moths myself. The larva is quite different from that of 

 C. verbasci, being shorter and with fewer markings. The moths appear 

 the middle or end of May, a month or six weeks later than C. verbasci. 

 I send for your acceptance a pair that M. Constant gave me. You will 

 see that this species is more like C. lychnitis than C. verbasci. The 

 larva of C. verbasci often feeds upon Scrophularia aquatica, but I 

 believe scrophidaricc only feeds upon S. iiodosa which always grows in 

 dry places." I presume this refererence, by a lepidopterist who un- 

 doubtedly knew both species thoroughly, has been overlooked by Mr. 

 Dale, or he would not have suggested that the species was "an 

 entomological myth," although the Rev. O. P. Cambridge is of opinion 

 that " his Bloxworth examples may not be any more than C. verbasci" 

 in fact, if they are very like verbasci they probably are that species. I 

 suppose there are some true scrophularia in various collections but all I 

 have ever had sent me have turned out to be verbasci. I have never 

 formed an opinion on Haworth's scrophularice, but it may be lychnitis, 

 although that seems in no way to affect the former as a British species. 

 In the Rev. E. N. Bloomfield's Lepidoptera of Suffolk, p. 23, we read : — 

 " Larvae of this rare species were taken by Mr. E. Skepper, and the 

 Rev. A. H. Wratislaw. Some of these were sent to Mr. Doubleday, 

 and were described and figured by Mr. Buckler." It is also recorded 

 on the same page from Lakenheath, Barton Mills and Higham in 

 Suffolk, by Messrs. T. and J. Brown. — J. W. Tutt. May, 1891. 



Flowers attractive to Moths. — I beg to supplement Mr. Russ' 

 " list of border plants and shrubs which are attractive to moths " {Record, 

 vol. i., p. 340) with the following : — Border Flowers. Golden rod 

 {Solidago canadensis); torch flower {Tritoma uvaria and vars.), this 



