18T6.1 207 



tliiit his L. metaUica J was described from an oxainplo of i. Oalathea, in whiuh the 

 pupils of the spots on the under-side of fore-wing were obsolete. This is the more 

 probable, as in the allied European species, L-yc. I'heretes, the same peculiarity 

 occurs : the pupils being sometimes very distinctly marked, and in other cases almost 

 invisible. Felder remarks on the relationship of this species to Lye. Cyllanis. I 

 think it closer to the I'heretes group, though certainly it has some affinity to Lye. 

 Cyllarus and L. melanops. The synonymy (if I am correct) should now stand as 

 follows : — Lye. Galathea, Blanch. (18'14) ; Lye. Nyeula, Moore (1865) ; Lye. 

 melallica, Feld. (1865). — Eichard P. Mukray, Beckeuliam : Decemher, 1875. 



Symphcsdra Dirtea attracted hy bait. — My old Penang friend, J. P. Stewart, 

 Esq., having lately paid me a visit, we soon found ourselves talking over our old 

 entomological days in Malacca. I was thus enabled to recall and verify a fact that 

 had quite slipped from my mind, viz. : — that Symphcedra Dirtea can be attracted by 

 a bait. Slices of cut pine-apple placed along a road that ran by the jungle, were 

 generally sure, in a short time, at the proper season, to be visited by a good supply 

 of both males and females. The sexes, as is well known, are strikingly dissimilar, 

 but the collectors there, without any special knowledge of Lepidoptera, had come 

 to the right conclusion owing to both forms being generally found together. Old 

 and fallen fruits of most kinds were attractive, but sliced pine-apple was mostly used 

 as bait. I had been told tliis when in Province Wellesley, Penang, but having never 

 tried it, I am {.dad to have the authority of my friend Stewart, who has been very 

 successful in catching this butterfly by the above method. — W. L. Distant, 

 Streatham Cottage, West Dulwich. 



yote on suyariny. — Some entomologists assert that it ia useless to sugar when 

 ivy is in bloom. Is'ow, I do not qu(;stion the fact of moths being attracted by the 

 ivy blossom, but I do question the useh'ssness of sugaring near ivy when it is in 

 blossom. I had an opportunity of proving this about the end of September, when 

 that plant was flowering. 



Tlie place where I sugared was in Berwickshire, near the coast. I first cut 

 about a dozen sticks, four or five feet long, and, by means of grass, tied various plants 

 on to the top of them. These sticks I placed in the ground in a long walk, with 

 shrubs on both sides, and well protected from northerly and easterly winds. A 

 plantation lay to the south of the walk, and a wall bordered this plantation on the 

 westward, while, on the top of this wall, forty yards from where the sticks were 

 placed, was the ivy. It overhung both sides, and covered a large portion of the wall. 



In the day-time wasps, drones, blue-bottle flies, &c., were in crowds on it, while, 

 in nights previous to my sugaring, moths were there in abundance. I used the 

 common sugaring mixture. This I placed on the plants. The night was peculiarly 

 favourable for the trial, being very dark, while a light wind blew the smell of the 

 sugar down in the direction of the ivy. About half-past seven I came out and 

 examined all the plants. I found it a complete success. I examined the ivy next, 

 and found only five or six moths. It was the same at 9 o'clock. The moths at the 

 sugar were mostly inebriated. Specimens of Xylinaferruginea were very numerous; 

 Cerastis vaccinii and Hcopelosoma satelliLia were also numerous. I got five speci- 

 mens of Calocampa exolela, and two of Ayrotis suffusa. Gonoptcra libafrix was 



