iwo.i g9 



collection was dispersed by auction in May, 1895, when it became the property of 

 Mr. Or. W. Bird. I have carefully compared the insect with the sets of unipunctella 

 in the Zeller, Frey, and Stainton collections, and it has nothing in common with 

 that species, which, moreover, belongs to a different group of the genus. In spite 

 of its having been reared, it is a very obscurely-marked individual, closely allied to 

 laripennella, Zett. (^ annulatella,Tg'itr.), of which species the "rough cases on 

 Chenopodium " are themselves suggestive, but without having seen the larval cases 

 which were so unfortunately lost in the breeding jar, it seems impossible to identify 

 it with certainty. Although Mr. Machia never labelled his specimens, there can be no 

 question that this moth is the one actually so bred by him, for no one could be more 

 careful in such matters, and there certainly was no insect at all like unipunctella 

 anywhere in his collection or boxes. Though unipunctella has fortunately never 

 been introduced as British, except in the Machin sale catalogue and some printed 

 label slips, it seems advisable to record the above facts. — Eustace R. Bankes, The 

 Rectory, Corfe Castle: February 12th, 1896. 



Mutilation of antennee of Cryptophagi in wasps' nests. — During the last two 

 or three years I have frequently received from Mr. W. H. Tuck, of Tostock, near 

 Bury St. Edmunds, considerable numbers of Cryptophagi from nests of Bomhi and 

 wasps. I liive been surprised to notice that the examples of C. puhescens, from 

 wasps' nests, very frequently had their antennsE more or less mutilated, whilst those 

 of other species, such as C. setulosus and scanicus were entire. One of the commonest 

 mutilations was the loss of the two terminal antennal joints ; not unfrequently, 

 however, a still larger part of the antennae would be missing. C. pubescens has the 

 last two joints of the antennal club much longer than the preceding one, and in this 

 respect it is exceptional in the genus ; it seems, therefore, rather remarkable that 

 the particular species which, in the structure of the antennae, departs somewhat from 

 the usual typo, should also be the one to suffer mutilation. 



It is not easy to see what can be the cause of the damage. Mr. Tuck suggested 

 to me that the antennae might have betm nibbled by the wasps. But this seems 

 improbable, partly from the extremely small size of the lost parts, and partly 

 because it is difficult to understand why the wasps, if they felt inclined to eat any 

 part of the insects, should have stopped short at a portion of the antennae, and in 

 so many cases should have done no more than cleanly cut off the last two joints. 

 I may add that Mr. Tuck reported tliat all the beetles were alive when he found 

 them. Perhaps some other collectors who have had experience with nests of Hy- 

 menoptera may be able to throw light upon the matter. — E. A. Butler, 39, Ashley 

 Road, Crouch Hill, N. : February llth, 1896. 



Hints on Collecting Myrmecophilous Coleoptera : a correction. — In my paper 

 on this subject {ante pp. 4i-50), Myrmedonia cognata, Mark., appears to have been 

 accidentally omitted from the list of species occurring with Formica fuliginosa. — 

 Horace Donisthorpe, 73, West Cromweil Road, South Kensington, S.W. : March 

 bth, 1896. 



Coleoptera from the summit of Ben Nevis. — In an interesting collection of 

 insects from the summit of Ben Nevis made by W. S. Bruce, Esq., who is in charge 



