VARIATlOtJ. 1^1 



that the reddish colour of S. tHiae is f!;enerally due to changes pro- 

 duced after emergence. This is certainly incorrect as a general 

 statement, as I have bred a good many since living in Devonshire, 

 and the majority have a very considerable colouring of reddish terra- 

 cotta, on emergence, and all have retained their green shades, as yet, 

 without change. I have two, which are coloured entirely reddish and 

 yellowish-brown (the latter colour between the second line and hind 

 margin), and have not a trace of green. They emerged as such, and 

 are S' and $ . The male with this colouring is, I believe, rare. My 

 specimens are from dug pupa?, a few forced in the spring, but the 

 majority allowed to come out at their usual time, the end of May or 

 beginning of June. There seems to be a considerable tendency to 

 asymmetry, four of my specimens exhibiting this peculiarity. — W. E. 

 Riding, M.D., F.E.S., Buckerell, nr. Honiton, Devon. 



It used to be supposed at one time that the red <S. tUioc were 

 specimens that had fed entirely upon elm, but, not only do they come 

 from larvjB fed upon other plants, but elm also produces specimens of 

 an olive tint. For myself, I have dug at least ten pupte from elm to one 

 from lime. — Sydney Webb, Dover. 



The beautiful aberrations of S. tiluie described by Mr. J. A. Clark, 

 and figured in the Entout. Ercord, vol. i., No, 11^, should have been 

 sufficient to have guarded Mr. Barrett against making this general 

 statement. The most beautiful red hues are to be found on 

 many freshly emerged specimens of this common species. The 

 red colour may be occasionally produced artificially, but most of those 

 in our cabinets are bred specimens. — J. W. Tutt, F.E.S. 



SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



Note on the home of Aphytocekos vagans, Tutt. — In the Knt. 

 Record, vol. i,, p. 203, are some notes on a Pyralid moth, described 

 under the name of Aphi/toceros vcuiam, which had been taken at Chep- 

 stow, and was in the possession of Mr. Mason, of Clevedon. I 

 suggested at the time that it might be a native of South America 

 or the West Indies. I am informed by Sir George F. Hampson that 

 a specimen has more recently turned up from the Murchison Range, 

 in the Transvaal. This is in the British Museum collection, and has 

 been re-described, by Warren, as loiuiijialidK, A.M.N.H. (6), ix., p. 

 391, and has been referred to Guenee's genus, Leuciiwdcs, the moth 

 standing in the British Museum collection as Lcucinodcs nu/aiis. These 

 two specimens are, at present, the only known individuals in exis- 

 tence. — J. W. Tutt. 



Note on the specific distinctness of ]\Iicropteryx salopiella and 

 M. unimaculella. — I have no hesitation in asserting that these are dis- 

 tinct and good species, although in the Kntinnohxjist Si/nonj/mic List, 

 ^[. salopiella appears as a synonym for the $ of M. uni)nacidella. 

 This is evidently an error. Stainton defines the two well in the 

 Manual. The two insects are never out together, so far as I have 

 observed, M. salopiella being generally a fortnight after M. unimaculella 

 in the time of its appearance. I have also repeatedly taken both 

 species in cop., but they have always been paired true. The spots on 

 the inner margin are quite distinct in shape in the two insects ; in 



