NOTES UlJ COLLECTING, ETC. 236 



nhujIcUa ; No. 3 is from Mr. J. B. Horl<^kiiisoii, in 1889 (one of lower 

 wings broken, and also named by him dnnnimjieUa). These specimens 

 are very nuicli like L. nIceUii, but darker, though not so dark in ground 

 colour, or so brilliant in markings as Dr. Corbett's insect. If L. dnn- 

 ningiella is like those sent me, and which I now exhibit, there is little 

 difference between it and L. niceUii — insufficient I think for it to rank 

 in our lists as a distinct species from tlie latter (L. nicellii). I have 

 never heard of L. dnnniiK/ieUa being bred. Mr. Home's Scoparia is a 

 curious var. of atomahs I tlunk, but 1 never saw such a var. before." 



Mr. N. M. liicliardson (Weymouth) writes on Feb. 22nd.: — 



" There is evidently a little uncertainty about the number of costal 

 s])ots in the nicellii section of Lifhocolletis, as, on examination of my series 

 of Idemannella which has normally only four costal markings, 1 find a 

 sjiecimen with five on one side, and a trace of the fifth on the other. 

 This specimen, with two others were bred by Mr. J. H. Threlfall. 

 1 should certainly hesitate, as I see Mr. Atmore has done, in saying that 

 his specimens of dnnniiujiella were not nicellii. I do not know on what 

 ground their captors called them dminingiella, and if dunningieUa are 

 like them, I should think the name might sink as a synonym. But I 

 Avrite as I said before, in ignorance of its appearance. Mr. Finlay's 

 Scojxiriae are no doubt all ainbigualis, the dark ones ap})roach atomalis. 



Mr. Arthur Home (Aberdeen) writes on March -ith : — " .S'. am- 



hitjunlis is an abundant and likewise an exceedingly variable insect in 

 the north of Scotland. From the experience that I have had with it, I 

 do not think for one moment that aiomalis is a distinct species. I can 

 always get both forms together, in fact, they run insensibly into each 

 other. In the exhibition box I send eight S. ambiijnnlis ; two of them 

 were named var. atomalis by Mr. Barrett, and I have purjDOsely removed 

 the labels, and shall be glad if any of the members will point out the 



vars. from the type. Dr. Corbett (Doncaster) writes on March 



8th : — " The discussion now going on with regard to Scoparia and Li- 

 thocolletis is very interesting, and will, I hope, be instructive. Both 

 these genera seem not to be thoroughly known, and any combined 

 experiences such as this note-book furnishes, may serve to clear up the 

 fog. (1). With regard to the genus Scoparia. The differential diag- 

 nosis l)etween atomalis and amhignalis, in the Manual, is not satisfactory, 

 as I think that we shall all agree that in a long series of ambigtialis 

 from one locality (one might almost go so far as to say from one tree 

 trunk) specimens might be found answering equally well to the de- 

 scription of either species. In all probability all such specimens would 

 be ambignalis. But when in one locality we find, besides the usual 

 varied forms of ambignalis, another form or species with different mark- 

 ings, and generally of a much smaller size and distinct habit, 1 think 

 that the probability is gi-eat that we have another species. The iSVo- 

 parias that I took at Eskdale during the summer of 1887, and which I 

 suppose to be atomalis, were not to be found on tree-trunks, indeed, I 

 never saw them during tlie day, but at tiie dusk of evening they flew 

 in abundance among the bushes of Myrica gale on the bog. Close to 

 the bog were typical ambignalis, on tree-trunks by day. Now, if the 

 two forms were only varieties of one species, is it not highly ])robable 

 that being so close together they would have interbred and j)roduced 

 intermediate forms ? None such were to be seen. As to ]\lr. Home's 

 specimens in the exhibition box, 1 take them to be all ambignalis, and 1 



