1887. J 43 



R. Bankes (vol. xxiii, p. 258), occur in moderate numbers among typical iS. ingratella, 

 ■which is found commonly on the coast near Dover, Folkestone, and Deal, but the 

 variation is more extended and general than it seems to be in the Purbeck locality. 

 I have a dozen striking pale varieties of ingratella in my series, which I captured in 

 July last (1886), the varieties showing almost every intermediate form between the 

 type with white ground colour and distinct markings, and pure spotless white. I 

 have only captured two of these latter forms, one in 1866, the other, July, 1885 

 (Entom., xix, p. 129) ; but I have one with the faintest possible trace of the chief 

 markings, viz., the quadrate spot on the costa, and the transverse band across the 

 base of the anterior-wings outlined in pale brown, the insect looking almost as 

 white as the pure form ; another has only a slight trace of the quadrate spot, the 

 basal band being represented by a dot on the costa, and a very short longitudinal 

 line where the centre of the band ought to be. These are the only markings. In 

 others, the whole of the markings are faintly outlined, leading gradually up to the 

 type. Even in this original home of ingratella some of the typical form are 

 inseparable from inland dubitalis taken in Kent and Surrey, and from otliers I have 

 which were taken in the neighbourhood of Darlington. The capture by Mr. Bankes 

 of similar varieties of pyralella is interesting, and serves to show how artificial is 

 the separation of these two so-called species. There is one thing, however, I should 

 like to see explained relative to them : typical dubitalis occur in large numbers in 

 Kent and Surrey from May 28th to June 21st, but the coast species (?), ingratella, 

 is never on the wing until June 28th, or thereabouts, and continues well into July. 

 I have paid great attention to the times of appearance of these two forms, but 

 always with the same result. Can any one explain this ? 



Whilst writing about this matter, I may mention another fact that has just 

 been brought prominently under my notice concerning two other doubtful species in 

 this genus — atomalis and amhigualis. A short time ago, I received a pair of Shet- 

 land atomalis from a Shetland collector. They were undoubtedly amhigualis, 

 corresponding in every particular with specimens in my series from Kent, Surrey, 

 Yorkshire, Glasgow, and Paisley. Who is responsible for naming these Shetland 

 insects ?— J. W. Tutt, Rayleigh Villa, Westcombe Park, S.E. : Mag, 1887- 



Occurrence in Worcestershire of Holocentroptis stagnalls, Alharda, a species of 

 Trichoptera neiv to Britain. — When searching for insects on May 10th, 1886, at 

 Qrimley, finding other modes of collecting all but useless, I turned to beating a 

 hawthorn hedge, the leaves of which were about half grown, and soon dislodged a 

 small brownish caddis-fly, which at once settled on the umbrella, closely folding its 

 wings to its body. In this position its wings seemed to be banded with three dark 

 brown fasciae. Other specimens were obtained in the same way, and when the 

 hedge and some willows on the other side of the lane had been beaten, some dozen 

 specimens had been secured. Near the lane, in a meadow, is a shallow pond, about 

 an acre in extent, closely filled with plants of Typha, Rmnex, Scirpus, Equisetum, 

 &c., which I supposed, and which proves, to be the natal place of the insect. 



Wlien these insects were examined at home they proved to be all ? . They 

 were evidently a species of Holocentroptis, and appeared to be the one described in 

 Mr. McLachlan's " Revision and Synopsis " as S. stagnalis. Mr. McLachlan 

 concurred in this view, but the matter had to remain over in the absence of the <? . 



D 1 



