NOTES ON COLIjECTINO. 87 



fourteen or fifteen years. It was found some distance from the old 

 locality ; but for the present, its exact haunt will remain a secret, in 

 the interests of the insect. With the clue so obtained I hope to get 

 larvie this year. The date of my capture and the date of Mr. Atkin- 

 son's find, as mentioned in the current No. of the lieaird (p. 48), is a 

 most extraordinary coincidence. — Richard Freer, M.D., Rugoley, 

 Htaft's. Maij \Hth, 1896. [This is one of the most interesting finds 

 of recent years. The date is most remarkable, considering the " Cur- 

 rent Note " {cuiU', p. 48). — Ed.] 



The oiuginal Buitish specimen of Lampides bcetica. — x\s time goes 

 on, many facts are forgotten, or, on the contrary, attain unwonted dimen- 

 sions. Mr. Lufi" has recently draAvn our attention to the introduction 

 of ('alliin(irj)lia hera into Britain more than a quarter of a century ago, 

 a fact which had almost been allowed to lapse, owing to the length 

 of time since its occurrence. On the other hand, Lampides boctica is 

 not an uncommon species in collections, although true British speci- 

 mens probably may still be numbered on the fingers of one hand. In 

 Newman's British Moths, p. 119, it is stated that Mr. McArthur 

 took "two specimens " of Lcunpides hoetiva at Brighton, the first on 

 August 4th, 1859, and the second the day following. This was 

 repeated by Mr. Newman in answer to a query, in I'lntom., ix., p. 92, 

 and has often been repeated since (Dale, etc.), although, in 

 Ktitoiti., ix., p. 182, Mr. Neil McArthur wrote himself : — " In Entom., 

 ix., p. 92, it is stated that I took 'two' specimens of L. boctica, it 

 should have been ' one,' which I have always understood to be the 

 only one ever recorded." This correction was made on April 24th, 

 1876. Who has this original specimen of Mr. McArthur's '? The other 

 recorded British specimens appear to be, " (1) By Mr. Latour, near 

 Christchurch, Hants, August 4th, 1859 (the same date as Mr. 

 McArthur's original Brighton specimen). (2) By Mr. C. D. Snell, 

 at Freshwater (Isle of Wight), August 28rd, 1878 {Kntom., xii., 88). 

 (8) By Mr. S. McCaul {Ent., xii., 155), a purchased specimen, stated as 

 coming from the Cotswolds. (4) By Mr. H. E. Durban, at Bognor, on 

 September 12th, 1880 (Ent., xiii., 240, and Knt., xv., 226). (5). By 

 Miss Staples, at Bournemouth, on October 2nd, 1882 (7'7«^, xv., 260.)." 

 — .John Bull. May, 1896. 



Acidalia perochraria. — In vol. vii.. No. 12, of the EnUniiidoqist's 

 Record, a singular mistake in reference to this species is twice repeated. 

 In "Current Notes," p. 818, mention is made of two A. perochraria 

 with the comment, " Not the original specimrns of Weston's." In 

 Mr. John Bull's article, p. 817, he says, " There are, presumably, 

 only Weston's tiro, supposed to be British. Are these Weston's? If 

 not, whose are they?" The italics are mine. It would perhaps be 

 as well to put the matter straight once and for all ; the more so, as a 

 specimen, fraudulently ascribed to Mr. Weston, was sold at the 

 Burney sale after Mr. Stevens announced from the rostrum that it 

 was not Weston's. There are but two authentic recorded British 

 specimens in existence — one, captured near Eedhill in 1865, by Mr. 

 Sydney Webb, is still in his collection ; the other, captured by Mr. 

 ^yeston, also near Eedhill, in 1869, while staying with Mr. AVebb, was 

 given by him to my late partner, Mr. H. Vaughan, at whose sale it 

 was purchased by me. Both Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Weston (who was 

 in our office) often spoke to me as to the details of its captiare. These 



