\IQ [Octoljcv, 



Halesus gtdtntipennis, McLach., as a British insect. — This species was originally 

 described by me in the " Trichoptera Britannica " (18G5) from a $ example, in 

 the lale Mr. Edwin Brown's collection, believed to have been taken in the north 

 of England. After Mr. Brown's death this specimen passed into the collection of 

 the Royal Dublin Society. Nothing more was heard of ffuttatipennis as British. 

 In 1861 ITagen (Stett. Zeit., p. 115) noticed a species of Halesus from Switzerland 

 as " mucoreiis" (Imhoff), which was subsequently (1875) renamed " helveficus" by 

 Meyer-Diir. Later on (1874) Stein identified as "ffuttatipennis" an insect captured 

 by him oh the Altvater in Silesia. When writing my "Envision and SynojDsis " I 

 incoiTeetly retained the name "ffuttatipennis" for the Altvater species (not having 

 had sufljcient confidence in my original description, not being then able to re-examine 

 the type, and being misled by the locality, considering a species from Silesia more 

 likely to occur in Britain than one fi'om Switzerland), and retained the name 

 " mncoreiis" for the Swiss species, which ultimately proved to be identical with the 

 original ffuttatipennis. In the Supplement to the " Revision and Synopsis " 

 (p. xxxix, 1880) this error was admitted, and the Altvater specimens received the 

 specific name " nepos." Still the original ffuttatipennis had received no further con- 

 firmation as British. At the recent sale of the late Mr. Benjamin Cooke's collection 

 I noticed a second (?) example ; no doubt he received it from the same source 

 whence came the original male, and I think there can be no doubt as to the I'ight of 

 the species to a place in our list. In fact, any scruples I may have held on this 

 point had been abandoned from the fact that a specimen had occurred in Belgium 

 (cf., Supplement, p. xxxix). But the entomologists of the northern and midland 

 counties of England should endeavour to discover the exact locality of the species 

 which is probably on one of the moors of their district. Guttatipennis and nepos 

 are very similar in general appearance, but the latter is smaller, and presents good 

 structural differences, according to the limited material I have worked from. Both 

 are probably autumnal, occurring in October and November, a time when most of 

 our entomologists have ceased outdoor work, and this may account ior guttatipennis 

 continuing to be almost unknown as British. — R. McLaciilan, Lewisham, Sep- 

 t ember, 1883. 



The larva of Plusia orichalcea. — In the month of July, 1882, in an outlying 

 part of the Cambridgeshire Fens, eight or ten worn specimens of Plusia orichalcea 

 were captured by the aid of a lamp, hovering round flowers of Eupatorium canna- 

 hinum ; one only, the first specimen obtained, was taken flying in the afternoon sun- 

 shine. This year I had the good fortune to beat ten specimens of a larva, which^ 

 though exactly like that of ffamma, but a little larger, produced in July nine beauti- 

 ful orichalcea. Three others were obtained, one each by Messrs. Archer, Cross, 

 and Raynor, of Elj', but were not reared. Of the earlier stages of the larvae I can- 

 not speak, as those beaten were all past, or near, their last moult. As far as I could 

 see, their colour, size, and markings are exactly those of F. gamma. There are two 

 fine white lines down the back from the third to the penultimate segment, with the 

 dorsal vessel showing darker green between them ; oblique white lateral lines on each 

 of these segments. On the second and third segments, and on the anal segment, 



