330 THE entomologist's record. 



transverse ridi/e of raised scales which stands on the dorsal half of the 

 first line, and of which there is never any trace in true B. tuniidelld , 

 So obvious is this difference, that the two species have been rightly 

 treated as distinct by every author of note for the last half-century, 

 and no one who is acquainted with both can possibly question the 

 claims of either to specific rank. It is needless here to touch on the 

 less important distinctions, both in the imagines, as well as in the 

 larvae. Although I have used the above names for these species, 

 because the one name is used in the passage referred to, I would point 

 out that in the E}it. 2Io. Mat/., xxii., 27-28, the late M. Eagonot, in 

 his *' Revision of the British species of Phijcitidde and (Talleridnt','' 

 dealt fully with the puzzling synonymy, and clearly showed that 

 K. rubrotibieUa, F.R., should be called tumidana, S.V., and tiuniddla, 

 Zk., should be known as zelleri, Rag., both species belonging to the 

 genus Acrubasis, Z. — Eustace R. Bankes, M.A., F.E.S., The Rectory, 

 Corfe Castle. September, 1897. 



Tinea ruricolella, Stn. — In the " Current Notes" {ante, p. 120^, 

 Mr. Tutt, referring to my remarks on Tinea cochylidella, Stn., in Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., Ser. 2, viii., 79-80, says that I am inclined to keep 

 T. ruricolella specifically distinct from T. doacella, " because " Mr. 

 Machin bred some specimens of the former, and there were none of 

 the latter among them. This statement, however, does not at all 

 represent the true sequence of my ideas. My reason for considering 

 them distinct is, as I there most clearly stated, that in the large 

 numbers of specimens, showing extensive ranges of variation, that 

 have been critically examined, I have always noticed certain differences 

 which seem constant and reliable. Mr. Machin's experience in 

 breeding T. ruricolella was merely mentioned by the way as affording 

 some slight additional support to my opinion, which had been 

 previously formed from other considerations. — Ibid. 



"^^ARIATION. 



Melanic Thera obeliscata (variata). — About the middle of Feb- 

 ruary I found a caterpillar of Tliera variata descending a Scotch fir in 

 Bostall Wood. The imago emerged with the ordinary spring brood, 

 but was nearly black, darker than any Scotch specimen that I have 

 seen. From the observations I have made on insects occurring in the 

 London district, there seem to be as many species subject to melanism 

 as in northern districts. — J. A. Butterfield, B.Sc, 35, Wrottesley 

 Road, Plumstead, S.E. 



POLYOMMATUS ASTRARCHE AB. QUADRIPUNCTA, Tutt. 1 Capturcd a 



few specimens of this interesting aberration, at Muchalls, Kincar- 

 dineshire, in July last. — A. Horne, F.E.S., Ugie Bank, Beaconsfield 

 Place, Aberdeen, N.B. 



Nemeophila plantaginis ab. hospita and AB. RUFA. — I uoticcd that 

 Barrett {British Lepidoptera, vol. ii., PI. 74, fig. 2c) figures a female 

 Nemeophila plantaginis, with red hind-wings, as the female of the ab, 

 hospita $ . Is not this an error ? Females with red hind-wings (ab. 

 rufa) are not uncommon on the Kincardineshire coast, and in the 

 immediate vicinity of Aberdeen, where, however, ab. hospita has never 

 been known to occur. All the females that I have seen on the higher 

 moors, where ab. hospita is found, have the hind-wings pale yellow, 

 but not white, as in the males.— Ibid, 



