-100 THK- EN'TOlMOLOfilST's KKCORD 



effect that Etqjcecih'a subroseana was very abundant near Kirkmicliael, 



in Perthshire, " last year " (I presume he means " the year before last," 

 as immediately afterwards he speaks of being " rather late for them 

 this year," which must be a slip of the pen for "last year," since his 

 note is dated February 8th, 1893), I should like to ask Mr. Reid 

 whether he is quite certain that the insect referred to is the true 

 subroseana, as originally described under that name by Haworth. Many 

 years ago the richly-coloured Scotch form of E. eiliclla was erroneously 

 called siihroseana, but in some most interesting notes in Enf. Mo. 

 Mag., v., pp. 244-246, and xi., p. 194, Mr. C. G. Barrett set the whole 

 matter straight, and proved conclusively that Wilkinson's description 

 of, and localities for snhrosenna, as well as the localities for it 

 (and, I may add, the description, also) given in Stainton's Manual, 

 really refer to the northern form of cilieJla, and not to the " genuine 

 article." Concerning the latter, Mr. Barrett remarks in Eni. Mo. May., 

 xi., p. 194, " It appears in this country to be confined to the woods of 

 the South, and is far from common ; " and it is a ^vell-known fact that 

 the larva feeds in the heads of golden-rod (Solidago virganrea). The 

 two species may be readily distinguished by the following characteris- 

 tics : — Suhroseana has the fore-wing Inroad, with the costa and hind- 

 margin rounded ; fascia, oblique, but not particiilarly so ; liasal area of 

 wing of the very pale and peculiarly ochreous ground colour, jiractically 

 unclouded ; outer area much clouded with pinkish-brown, especially 

 towards the apex ; hind-marginal fringes, whicli are intersected by a 

 dark transverse line, Avith the terminal portion marked Avith dark 

 fuscous. CilieUd has the fore-wing long and narrow, nci;tely pointed at 

 the apex, and with the costa and hind-margin nenrly straight ; fascia, 

 verj' oblique ; ground colour much less strongly ochreous than in suh- 

 roseana (though the Scotcli form is more ochreous than the English 

 one), and the contrast in colour between the outer and the liasal por- 

 tions of the wing much less noticeal)le; hind-marginal fringes, which 

 are intersected liy a dark transverse line, with the terminal portion clean 

 and not marked with fuscous. It appears to me most probable that 

 Mr. Reid has been misled by the errors in Stainton's Manual, or in 

 Wilkinson's British Tortrices, and has mistaken the Scotch form of 

 ciliella for the true southern suhroseana of Haworth, though, of course, I 

 am <piite open to correction in the matter. — Eustace R. Bankes, The 

 Eectorv, Corfe Castle. March 20th, 1893. 



Hariation. 



Although I'apilio iiKichaon at a iirst glance presents nothing very 

 striking in the way of variet}', yet a careful examination of a number 

 of specimens reveals very significant aberrations in some of the mark- 

 ings. As I shall frequently have to refer to the nervures to indicate 

 the locality of different markings, I have prepared a diagram shoAsdng 

 the aieuration of the Avings, and have adopted the simpler method of 

 using numbers throughout. 



