CURRENT NOTES. 113 



In a paper on " Fungi parasitic on Butterflies," by Mr. Rickard, 

 are some remarkable statements as to the occurrence of microscopic 

 fungi among the scales of White (and other) butterflies. These are 

 not to be found among the females, but are to be detected on the 

 male wings of I'ierU hraHHccw, P. rapac, P. napi, P. (htplidicc and 

 FAicldoe ranht)iiiiu's ; whilst "several South African butterflies have 

 similar parasites," and he gives a large number of cases of similar 

 fungi as occurring in the males of various Satyrids and Lycaenids, 

 and considers that " the parent forms of the fungi will probably be 

 found, in a degraded state, on the food-plants of the various butterfly 

 larvffi," and that " all the fungi hitherto noticed appear to belong to 

 Berkeley's (jastrmmi/cetcs, a rather high order of the class ;" whilst 

 the Editor of the p})itomolo;/ist understands that Mr. Rickard has 

 continued his investigations of these butterfly "fungi," with the 

 result that his original conclusions are confirmed. He Avrites : "As 

 a matter of fact, I am cultivating the spores between glass-slips ; 

 some h;ive already germinated ! " Now, when a man describes "fungi " 

 from specimens of Pit-ris cujatluna (1) that have been " dead some five 

 or six and twenty years," (2) when he finds that fungi are confined 

 to the scales of one sex, (3) when he cultivates such fungi as these on 

 glass- slips, one rather wonders what has happened. We would 

 seriously suggest that Mr. Rickard's fungi are simply the androconia 

 of the male insects, and not fungi at all. We await the " cultivation" 

 experiments with expectation. 



;I510TES ON COLLECTING, Etc. 



Reflections and queries on the value of rare British Lepi- 

 DOPTERA. — Referring to the criticism under the above title (r/?(^(', p. 67), 

 I was quite aware that in the mists of antiquity one specimen of 

 Diaseuiia raiiiburialis was reported as captured by Mr. Thomas Boyd. 

 I was further aware that Ehulca cataUninalis was also introduced into 

 the British fauna on the strength of a specimen reported as captured 

 by Mr. C. W. Boyd ; in fact, the strange coincidence that two gentle- 

 men of the same name should capture the specimens by which two 

 such rare species were introduced was the point that struck me as 

 peculiar, but I did not know anything of these gentlemen whom your 

 correspondent champions so strongly. I had quite overlooked Mr. 

 Digby's record of the former species, or should have been more guarded 

 in my ofl'hand remarks (at least as to the specimen he captured). At the 

 outside, then, so far as " A Country Cousin " shows us, there are two 

 bona fide British captures of 1>. raiidmrialis recorded, and one of 

 E. catahnoialis. Now, this being so, it is the publication of a list of 

 localities like that in Leech's BritisJi l^i/ralidcs that puzzles me. Where 

 did Leech get the localities, " Lewes, Folkestone, Dover, Cornwall," 

 for D. raiidmrialis, from ? Evidently, with the exception of Cornwall, 

 not from the magazines, and if "near London" is intended for 

 " Cheshunt," who captured K. ratalaunalis " near Dover ? " But 

 " A Country Cousin " knows that dozens of reputed British specimens 

 have gone through the sale rooms during the last 20 years. So far, 

 he has shown us that the British authenticity of these species rests 

 fairly on two and one specimen respectively. Meyrick says of E. 

 catalannalis, " Kent, a rare immigrant only ; S. Europe, S. Asia, 

 Malay Archipelago ; " of D. ramburialis, " Kent to Cornwall, very 



