74 THE entojiolootst's kecord. 



B. — (cent.) — 1. — Free segments, o 6 7. 5 (3. L!thocoUetid(e, Gra- 

 cilariidie. 

 2. — Free segments, -i 5 G 7. 4 o G. 



a. — TiNE.i: {Thicido', Psi/clu'da', Sesiida). 

 h. — Tort KITES {Tortricma, Cossus, E.capate, Siviae- 

 this). (Casfn/a). 

 3.— Free segments. 3 4 o G 7. 3 4 5 6. 



(/. — Zelzera and Hei-ialis, tend to lose 3rd as a 



free segment. 

 h. — Tischeria. 

 c. — ADELiD.ii. Ovii)Ositor (of imago) formed for 



piereing plant tissues ( includes Er/'ocejthala). 

 d. — Xepticulid-i;. Antennte separate from head in 

 dehiscence. 

 1). — Larva exjjosed feeder. Sluglike in form and movements, 

 head very retractile. Free segments. 3 4 5 6 7. 

 3 4 5 6. 

 1. — MirRorTERVGiD.i;. Eight pairs abdominal legs, curious 



appendages, moss feeders. 

 2. — CocHLiopoDiD.^. Legs evanescent, hut traces of extra 

 pairs and of curious appendages. Max. palps 

 large in pupa, not in imago. 

 3. — Zyg^^md.^:. Legs of macro type. Max. jtalps eva- 

 nescent in pu}»a. 



C. ? — Pupa Avitli no free segments, appendages adherent 



to all abdominal segments. Lyimetia, Cchii- 

 ostoma, BedeJlia. 

 AciPAi.iA Hi'MJLiATA, HiFX. (Plate C, tig. 10). — "With regard to my 

 note on this species in the last nund.ier of tliis Magazine, our readers 

 ■will have noticed that I carefully refrained from giving a decided 

 opinion relative to the specimen as figured on Plate C, fig. 19. Li The 

 Entoriiohgisf, vol. xxii., pp. 121-125, I discussed at length our species 

 usuall}' known as dihtaria or niter jectar in. There is no need to 

 traverse all the gi-ound again, but I dealt with all the descriptions and 

 records of British specimens up to date, and came to the con- 

 clusion that all our British specimens belonged to one and the same 

 species, and that osfcata, HI)., as some of our red-costa specimens were 

 called, was only a form of this sj^ecies. I referred to Hiibner's original 

 figure, and this fully bore out my conclusion, Hiil)ner's oiseata was 

 undoubtedly our common interjectariu. and not a distinct species. I 

 have referred to it again, and I am more strongly than ever of the same 

 opinion. But an allied species has long been sent out by Continental 

 entomologists as hvmiUata, Ilufn. This used to be most carefully re- 

 ferred to by certain professional entomologists as " the true osseata,"' 

 and of these specimens Mr. C. G. Barrett very pointedly writes in the 

 current number of the Ent. Mo. Mag. : — " Then came a time Avhen it 

 was important from a financial point of view that British osseata 

 shoiild be obtained, and, accordingly, specimens differing in no respect 

 from those found wpon the Continent — having more pointed wings,, 

 striga^ more ol)lique, and the costa of quite a different red, were readil}" 

 obtainable by those who were willing to pay a good jirice. and, for a 

 time, these were l)elieved to be genuine natives. Cause for doubt,, 

 however, arose, and in 1S72 Mr. Doubleday wrote to me as follows : — 

 <I do not believe that the beaiitiful specimens of the true osseata which 



