1879. 209 



the scene as if it iras only bred last year : ■whereas, I actually sent specimens to Mr. 

 Stainton in 1861, as it puzzled me. He retiirned it as atomella (the broom-feeder 

 scopariella had not then been separated specifically, and both were then mixed under 

 the one name atomella), with the remark, that probably the food-plant, Genista 

 tinctoria, was the cause of some variation from the usual appearance of the insect. 

 I bred several dozens, and all my correspondents will have it in their cabinets : it 

 may readily be distinguished from the others by the pinkish tinge on the anterior 

 wings, as also by their being much longer than in D. scopariella. 



Three years ago, I sent specimens to Mr. Barrett, he said, " Are you sure it is 

 atomella ?" I replied that it was so named by Mi". Stainton. I heard no more 

 about it until September 30th, 1878, when I received a letter from Mr. Earrett, 

 saying, " I am doing my utmost to prove that ^our D. atomella from Genista tinc- 

 toria is distinct from the species taken in the south of England and hitherto called 

 atomella, but do not be too sanguine ; the Genista-atomella is much more local than 

 the other. I may add, that I have bred a lot here." 



The readers of the January number of the Magazine wovild imagine that my 

 valued friend Mr. Barrett was the discoverer of the species, whereas, I have been 

 breeding it for the last seventeen years, aiid I have no doubt that Mr. Stainton's 

 " single specimen of unknown origin " was from me. — J. B. HoDaKiNSON, 15, Spring 

 Bank, Preston : Jan. Uh, 1879. 



Elachista monticolella. — In Aiigust, 1872, 1 took several of this insect at Wither- 

 slack. I thought at the time I could see a difference from \kilmunella. I sent all 

 my fine series of the latter and several of the former to Mr. Stainton to examine. 

 He replied, " Get more and try and breed it, you may get a new species." I placed 

 them in my cabinet as JE.festucella, n. sp. Last July I called Mr. Sang's attention 

 to them, he did not know the insect, and remarked that he had some Elachista 

 larvae then feeding, which he did not know. Oddly enough, they came out E. mon- 

 ticolella. I sent the same specimens again to Mr. Stainton to overhaul, and this 

 time he returned them as monticolella, with a note saying they are probably Edle- 

 ston's alpinella. — Id. 



Note on the synonymy of Cicada montana, Scop. — In the "Ann. Soc. Ent. France," 

 2e Ser., v, 154 — 156 (1847), Amyot, in pursuance of his " Systeme mononymique," 

 changed the names, among others, of four species of Cicadina into Tibieina (derived 

 from the genus Tibicen, Latr.), Melampsalta, Tettigetta and Cicadetta, the latter 

 being in place of hamatodes. Fab., = montana. Scop., our English species. The 

 conversion of specific into generic names, although common with zoologists and 

 botanists, has often been reprehended and would have been specially denounced by 

 Amyot in his case. In his "Meletemata Entomologica," vii, 414 — 425 (1857), 

 Kolenati restored the specific names which Amyot had set aside, and adopted 

 Amyot's names as sub-generic under the genus Cicada, Auct. In his " Hemiptera 

 Africana," iv, 25 (1866), Stal preserved Tibicen, Latr., as a distinct genus, but made 

 the other three sub-genera into a genus (p. 42) , enlarging the characters thereof ac- 

 cordingly, as he had a perfect right to do ; yet it was not correct to call the genus, 

 as he did, Melampsalta, KoL, for it is not only not Kolenati's sub-genus, but is com- 

 posed of elements which had been by him purposely separated fi'om it under other 

 names. J. Sahlberg, in the "Notiser Fl. et Faun. Fenn.," xiii, 77 (1874), does not 



