276 THE entomologist's record. 



Diayithcecia facies may be for protection etc., in the imago stage, the 

 affinities will be best found in the larvae." It is therefore incontestable 

 that the imago conforms to the Dianthczcia type ; so much so indeed 

 that the melanic var. of D. nana often passed for D. barnitii. The 

 antennae are of the Dianthcecia character, not that of Luperina ; 

 the emergence of the moth is that of a Dianthcecia ; the pupa is dis- 

 tinctly Diantlicecian with the well-marked protuberance at the end of 

 the wing cases. Staudinger and Wocke rank luteago as a Dianthcecia. 

 It feeds in the larval stage on Silene, which is the characteristic food of 

 this genus. But Mr. Buckler and Mr. Dobre'e say that the larva is 

 similar in habits to that of Luperina. How ? The head and first seg- 

 ment are exactly that of Dianthcecia. The shape also similar to D. 

 capsophila, and sometimes the larva of the latter is almost as pale as 

 that of D. barrettii. The only point alleged is its being an internal 

 feeder ! And the extraordinary thing is, that the greater portion of the 

 species in Luperina are not internal feeders. Some of them eat the 

 roots of plants, as L. cespitis, others eat the shoots and leaves, but hide 

 only among the roots, e.g., Z. testacea, L. nickerlii and L. virens. L. 

 rubella is the only one that is, I believe, an internal feeder, the rest eat 

 grass, or various portions of low plants, just as D. capsophila does, to 

 my knowledge, when the capsules are not to be had. In fact, when 

 capsophila larva is nearly full-fed, it lives, like many Nocture, in the 

 sand or earth, and eats capsules, leaves or stems of the Silene at night. 

 I have bred D. barrettii as far as the larval stage, and the larva is a 

 Dianthcecia larva, except that it is blanched like every internal feeder. 

 It, however, also eats leaves and twigs above earth occasionally. Re- 

 turning again to the imago, the shape and pattern is that of the 

 Hadenidce, none of the marked characters being wanting. The 

 Luperinas are conspicuously devoid of these, and are rightly not so 

 grouped. If we are to overlook this, and class a species from one 

 characteristic of the larva only, we may as well remove D. barrettii to 

 the SesiidcB and place it next musciformis. — W. F. de V. Kane, 

 Sloperton Lodge, Kingstown. October 20th, 1891. 



I consider D. barrettii a true Dianthcecia, the larvae may have a 

 superficial resemblance to those of the genus Luperina, but I am told 

 by people who should know something about the matter, that they (the 

 larvae) are really Diantha^cia. The pupae are true Diantha;cia, and the 

 imagines are certainly in a more natural position among the Dianthcecice 

 than among the species of Luperina. fhe foodplant should also be 

 considered, but to my mind, the structural difference of the pupa is the 

 best argument in favour of the insect being considered a species of 

 Dianthcecia. —\^. Reid, Pitcaple, N.B. November ^th, 1S91. 



^URRENT NOTES. 



I would call the attention of our subscribers to the fact that it 

 would save some trouble to send the shilling for the Special Lndex to 

 Vol. II. of the Ent. Record, with the annual subscription. 



The meeting of the London Entomological Society on the 2nd inst., 

 was a very enjoyable and successful one. Mr. Merrifield's exhibit 

 proved most conclusively that his low temperature experiments had 



