146 THE entomologist's record. 



For the general protection of the eggs, we find them frequently 

 covered thickly with hairs from the abdomen of the female. This is 

 especially the case with the Bombyces, in which many species, such as 

 the Lipnridae, cover their eggs with a large quantit}-^ of fluffy scales. 

 The coating of Leucoma salicis has a saliva-like appearance. Placed, 

 however, on the underside of a poplar leaf, it is difficult to detect at a 

 little distance. 



SCIENTIFIC NOTES & OBSERVATIONS. 



Erkatum. — Page 97, line 48. — For " hesperidies " read " hesperidis." 



Specific Distinctness of Euchloe cardamines and E. tukkitis. — 

 In answer to the Editor's note, asking for references to authorities on 

 this ])oint, I may say that Mr. W. F. Kirby treats E. turritis as a distinct 

 species (Europ. Butt, and M., p. 6), a view held too by Mr. J. Watson, 

 whom he quotes. Three friends of my own, one of whom is no mean 

 scientist, as well as myself, have, after carefully examining this species 

 under an excellent microscope, unanimously come to the conclusion that 

 E. cardamines and E. turritis are two very distinct species. Dr. 

 Staudinger, on the other hand, makes the latter merely a var. of the 

 former ; but I very much doubt if he would do so in his next catalogue, 

 if his attention were once called to the matter. — F. B. Newnham, 

 Church Stretton, Salop. May 2nd, 1894. 



We have submitted the foregoing to Mr. Kirby, and have received 

 the following note from him on the subject : 



I believe that I am the first author who treated E. tnrrttis as a distinct 

 species, as Mr. Newnham has correctly stated. Later on, however, the 

 late Mr. B. B. Labrey told me that Mr. Watson had wrongly identified 

 his specimens, and had called gruencri or datnonc by the name of turritis. 

 If Mr. Newnham has an opportunity of examining the 2:)lumules of 

 cardamines and turritis, and can establish a distinction between them, or 

 if he has any other evidence to offer in favour of the two being distinct 

 species, it will be a matter of considerable interest. We have still 

 much to learn even about British butterflies. The Americans have 

 suggested that the various forms of Pohjijonia c-album may be distinct 

 species ; this I think unlikely, but who has bred the insect with suffi- 

 cient care to prove that they may not be right ? Wm. F. Kirby, Brit. 

 Mus. (Nat. Hist.). May 10th, 1894. 



A PROBABLE NEW SPECIES OF EucHLOE. — I was much interested in 

 Mr. Newnham's note under this heading in the April number. Here, 

 I first came across the diminutive form he mentions three years ago, but 

 did not pay much attention to it at that time, because, as I only met 

 with three or four specimens, I put them down as probably the results 

 of a few half-starved larvae. Last year, however, I saw a much larger 

 number, and on several occasions this year I have actually seen a greater 

 number of the small form than of the large. The specimens I have 

 cajitured appear fully to bear out Mr. Newnham's observations, except 

 that the form does not seem to Ije limited here to a restricted area. I 

 ramble over a good many miles of country, and I come across it wherever 

 I go. — A. Nesbitt, Llandugo. May, 1894. 



In The I'roreedings of the South London Entomological Society for 

 1888 are quite a number of papers on the genus Euchloii, which should 



