iO [February, 



Elachisla cingiUella, H.-S. : a correction. — In Ent. Mo. Mag., Ser. 2, vol. iii, 

 p. 80, Mr. B. A. Bower recorded the capture by himself of an example of Elachlsta 

 cingiUella at Lee on August 5th, 1891, adding that the insect had been so identified 

 fur him by Mr. Barrett. The moth in question was also exhibited as cingiUella at 

 a Meeting of the Ent. Soc. Lond. held on December 2nd, 1891. When looking 

 through Mr. Bower's collection about a year ago, I saw this specimen for the first 

 time, and noticing that it differed materially from all the cingiUella that I had seen 

 borrowed it for further examination. A comparison with Kerrich-Schaffer's figure, 

 and with the sets of cingiUella in the Frey, Stainton and Zeller collections, proved 

 that it could not be that species, and on my recently showing it to Mr. Barrett side 

 by side with continental specimens he agreed that he had been mistaken in its 

 identity. After a careful inspection, I have no hesitation in determining it as a 

 small, faded and rather worn male example of zo«ar«e^^a. "Kent" can, therefore, 

 no longer stand as a locality for E. cingiUella, whose only claim to be considered 

 British rests upon Mr. Stainton's statement (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., vol. iv, N. S., ' 

 p. 312 ; Ent. Ann., 1859, p. 155) that Mr. Allis possessed a specimen taken in the 

 North of England some years previously to 1859 ; the more precise locality " near 

 Chesterfield," given in the " Manual," seems clearly to have reference to Mr. Allis' 

 moth. I have had no opportunity as yet of examining this specimen, which pre- 

 sumably is still in the Allis collection at the York Museum, but think that, as the 

 occurrence here of cingiUella has never been confirmed, the capture (about half a 

 century ago) of a single individual, supposed to represent that species, does not 

 afford sufficient justification for retaining the insect in the British List. We have 

 in Britain several species which are closely allied to it, and very variable, and an 

 example of one of them might easily have been mistaken for cingiUella, which is 

 hardly likely to have escaped notice if it has so long been established in this 

 country. — Eustace R. Bankes, The Rectory, Corfe Castle : January Qth, 1896. 



Damage caused in Dorset by larvcB of Hemichroa rufa, Panz. — On September 

 26th, when out shooting, we came upon a spot, some three miles to the north of 

 Wareham, in Dorset, where was a row of very fine alder bushes about 15 to 20 feet 

 in height, growing on either side of a stream, and for the distance of 150 yards or 

 more almost every single alder bush had been entirely stripped by larvae which Mr. 

 McLachlan kindly identified for me as those of Hemichroa rufa, Panz. ; hardly a 

 leaf remained on any of the twigs or branches. The larvae must have been in truly 

 prodigious numbers to have wrought such havoc, and although the greater part had 

 already fed up and gone, hundreds were wandering up and down the stems in search 

 of food, or making short work of any leaves tliey could find. The few bushes of asli, 

 birch, &c., which grew among the alders were quite untouched, although H. rufa is 

 said to feed on birch as well as alder.— Id. : December 28th, 1895. 



Abundance of Cetonia aurata in 1895. — I have been informed on good authority 

 that Cetonia aurata, the rose beetle, has been of late years much scarcer than for- 

 merly in some localities, and has apparently quite disappeared from some gardens 

 which it used to haunt. In our own garden it occurs annually, but is not coniniou 



