1879.] 189 



as in scopariella. The difference in the lavvse is, I believe, not yet sufficiently made 

 out. Rossler describes the larvfB of atomella as very pale grey-green, with shining 

 black head and thoracic plate, the latter with a fine central line, but he makes no 

 mention of the larva of the other species : von Heinemann describes the larva of 

 scopariella as green, with three dark stripes and a reddish-green head. 



Writing to Mr. Barrett on the subject, I called his attention to the fact that 

 if we knew that both these descriptions were made from full fed larv£e, there was 

 plenty of distinction, but that it was quite possible the larva of scopariella before 

 tlie last moult might have a black head and thoracic plate, and if the larva of 

 atomella described by Rossler was immature, it might assume a different appearance 

 afterwards. Mr. Barrett, in reply, sent me his memorandum of the larva of atomella 

 on Genista tinctoria as follows : " Cylindrical, exceedingly active and gymnastic. 

 " Delicate pale pea-green, with narrow dorsal and broader sub-dorsal stripes all grey- 

 " green. Spots small, black, hairs minute. Head and plates pale yelloiv." 



Probably next season an opportunity will be taken to compai'e the two larvae in 

 their various stages of growth. — H. T. Stainton, Mountsfield, Lewisham : 12th 

 Decemler, 1878. 



The Dotibleday Collection. — I think I should not leave unnoticed the remarks 

 of Mr. W. J. Vandenbei'gh, Jun., which appear in the E. M. M. for the present 

 month, on my letter to the " Entomologist," for October, in reference to the request of 

 the Trustees of the Doubleday Collection for fresh specimens of 238 species of 

 Lepidoptera. 



The remarks may be conveniently divided into two sections : Ist, that I should 

 not have written on "questionable information" — which Mr. Yandenbergh considers 

 I have done ; and 2nd, that my letter has deterred entomologists from sending spe- 

 cimens to the Doubleday Collection. 



As regards the 1st, I would point out that Mr. Vandenhergh could have seen 

 from a catalogue of the Collection (if he had obtained one), and from my letter to 

 the " Entomologist " (if he had read it carefully), that itwas on no " questionable 

 information " that my letter was based — but on actual knowledge, obtained while 

 collating the catalogue with the Collection. The catalogue (which was undertaken 

 at my suggestion) was, I understood, but a preliminary to placing all mite-infested 

 specimens under proper treatment. I spent many hours on each of several days at 

 the Bethnal Green Museum in supervising the catalogue, and, for this purpose, I had 

 the whole of the collection under my immediate notice, and I then predicted that 

 very serious results would accrue unless energetic steps were taken to eradicate the 

 mites by which so many specimens were attacked. 



But if anything were wanting to show how foolishly Mr. Yandenbergh has 

 accused me, and how well-founded my prediction was, the advertisement of the 

 Trustees for 238 species furnishes it. 



As regards the 2nd point — that I have deterred entomologists from responding 

 to the request of the Trustees — I am obliged to Mr. Yandenbergh for the compliment 

 he conveys, that I can influence entomologists so much, but must decline it. But 

 Mr. Yandenbergh can scarcely be aware that nothing can be more deterrent than his 

 own communication. He tells us there are " no signs of mites, grease, or any other 

 kind of neglect," not even old or faded specimens, and that " the whole collection 



