CURRENT NOTES. 24c5 



British insects is to remain intact, also that the European collection of 

 Tineidce, which contains many of the types from which the original 

 descriptions of the respective species were made, will also remain 

 intact and be immediately accessible. The cabinets containing the 

 exotic Micro-lepidoptera will have to be specially asked for by those 

 who wish to refer to their contents. 



Mr. A. Thurnall adds a new Dichrorhampha to the British list, viz., 

 D. alpcstraaa, H.-S. The specimens were bred from larvae found in 

 roots of Achillea ptarmica growing in a damp spot in Epping Forest on 

 March 11th last, the larvae being " bone white with light brown heads." 

 The imagines were well out on June 4th. These are "particularly 

 stumpy and square looking, the markings putting one more in mind of 

 D. alpinana than any other species of the genus." A description is 

 appended {E. M. M., pp. 175-176) together with a long note by Lord 

 Walsingham on the synonymy of "Dichrorhampha'' subsequana, Hw., 

 under which name D. alpentrana is wrongly included in Staudinger 

 and Wocke's Catalogue. 



Mr. C. G. Barrett notes the occurrence and capture by Mr. W. M. 

 Christy of a series of Z. trifolii, including several specimens of var, 

 lutescens, first described in the Young Naturalist, vol. ix., p. 152. 



A specimen of Pieris daplidice is reported as having been captured 

 at Eastbourne on July 9tli by Mr. C. Masters : a gynandrous Argynnis 

 paphia by Mr. P. Carle w in the New Forest, whilst Mr. Goss reports 

 Lycoena arion from North Cornwall. Mrs. Hanbury we understand has 

 captured a specimen of Leucania vitellina in the New Forest and another 

 in the Isle of Wight. Mr. Mathew records the breeding of 38 specimens 

 of Plusia moneta from larvae taken in May ; and Mr. Purdey the 

 capture of Stigmonota {Halonota) ravidana at Folkestone. 



It is with regi'et that we record the death of the Rev. H. Burney, 

 who died on July 16th, aged 79. He was an ardent collector of British 

 lepidoptera, and has of late years increased his collection very largely 

 by purchase from well-known professional collectors. This, as will be 

 seen by reference to our advertisement columns, is shortly to be brought 

 to the hammer. 



A Mr. W. E. Sharp adds his quota to what he terms " the mel- 

 anism controversy." The paper is written with a maximum of good 

 taste and a minimum of information. He commences by stating that 

 it has occurred to him that " the view the question assumes to one who 

 compensates for the disadvantage of not being a specialist in lepi- 

 doptera, by the advantage of having neither preconceptions to sustain 

 nor theories to enunciate on the matter, may not be devoid of interest," 

 which, Ave presume, means in plain English that " not having devoted 

 the time required to the consideration of this suljject, and not having 

 the information on the subject which can only be acquired by a 

 specialist, I am in the satisfactory jjosition of being able to thoroughly 

 discuss the subject." That this view is fully carried out is shown by 

 the subdivision of the problem into two parts a, and h, of which division 

 the author immediately afterwards writes : " It will be seen that a and 

 h may be considered as equivalent." In other words we presume the 

 division has been made because there is no need for it. Mr. Sharp 

 shows that he is not a specialist, for he writes : •* Preponderance of 

 individuals does not indicate the type, otherwise we should have now 

 to regard the form doubledayaria as the type of Aniphidasys betularia." 



