200 THE Entomologist's record. 



there is plenty of room for biologists and students of nomenclature to 

 Avork harmoniously side by side ; we shall get no stability of classifi- 

 cition until work of the order of Dr. Chapman's has been carried on 

 throughout, nor any stability of nomenclature until Mr. Grote's work 

 is accepted. And I would most earnestly plead for an understanding 

 bstween these two classes of workers, in the truest interests of the 

 S3ience whose welfare both seek to promote. To draw my illustration 

 from the case of the Acroni/ctiili (or Apatda) at present under notice, 

 we can all, I am sure, accept with the utmost confidence any definite 

 dictum from Dr. Chapman as to whether the group shall form one genus 

 or three ; and if the latter is to be the case, we can with equal confidence 

 entrust it to the researches of Mr. Grote, to ascertain for us the correct 

 names of the three genera. — Louis B. Prout, F.E.S., 12, Greenwood 

 Road, Dalston, N.E. Noveinhev 2Sth, 1895. [We understand Mr. 

 Front's position, see our remarks antr, p. 148. — Ed.] . 



Note ox Argyresthia illuminatella, Zell.- — Mr. Tutt will, I am 

 sure, forgive me for pointing out that in his notes on An/i/rcstliia 

 illuiiiiuati'lla in Kuf. liec, v., 78, and vi., 34, he is in errorin sayingthat 

 Lord Walsingham added this species to the British list on the strength 

 of specimens taken by Salvage, " among larch," at Forres. Salvage 

 himself has no idea under what circumstances he took them, and a 

 reference to Lord Walsingham's remarks in Ent. Mo. Mat/., ser. 2, 

 vol. v., pp. 50-51, will show that he merely says, " Three examples in 

 my own collection from Forres, collected by Salvage, .... ," and 

 adds A. ilium inatella, Zell., to the British list on the strength of these 

 three specimens. But he clearly implies that Salvage, in all proba- 

 bility, did not capture them " among larch," or, at any rate, that the 

 larva' had almost certainly not fed on that tree, for he goes on to 

 say that if jNIr. Atmore can succeed in finding on larch the larva of 

 his insect, which was captured amongst larch, and differs from the 

 Forres insect, he will be justified in separating it as anew species dis- 

 tinct from ilium inatdla. He also adds that as Hartmann mentions larch 

 as one of the food-plants of ilhauinatcUa, it may be that both forms 

 have been included under one name on the Continent. The words of 

 my friend Mr. Home, which are quoted in Kut. Rec, vi., 34, show 

 that he, too, has misunderstood the point of Lord Walsingham's 

 remarks, for he says, "I remember Lord Walsingham urged Mr. 

 Atmore to search for larvae of A. illuminatella on larch ; " but, as a 

 matter of fact, Lord Walsingham particularly urged Mr. Atmore to 

 seai'ch for the larva of his insect on larch, in the hope that he might 

 find it on that tree, and thus furnish additional proof of its distinct- 

 ness from illuminatella, which, to the best of our belief, is not a larch- 

 feeder. Sorhagen says that the larva of illuminatella occurs on 

 juniper, while Frey and von Heinemann give it as feeding in the buds 

 of some of the species of Piiius, but do not mention any of them by 

 name. — Eustace R. Bankes, M.A., F.E.S., The Rectory, Corfe 

 Castle. December, 1895. 



The remarks made by Mr. Bankes are very just. At the same 

 time it must be confessed that our present position with regard to the 

 Ar;/i/restliia from Forres, and the An/i/restlna from King's Lynn, is most 

 unsatisfactory. If they are one species, then, the species must be 

 looked upon as occurring among larch, if not, then Mr. Atmore's 

 species wants a name. We appear to have :■ — 



