1908.] 99 



Annulata seems to be really rare. I once took it at Merrow, 

 near Guildford ; but all uiy other specimens are foreigners (Algiers, 

 Tirol, N. and S. Italy, &c), and I cannot remember its occurrence in 

 the " sendings" of any of my correspondents. 



FURTHER NOTE ON A. SCUTELLARIA, Cam. 

 A. Scutellaria?, C, is described by the author as allied to rosce 

 (/. e., lineolata), but having, besides other differences, a longer third 

 antennal joint (" more than double the length of the fourth ") and 

 (but this only in the ?) a " luteous scutellum and sternum." Of 

 the middle lobe of the mesonotum, Mr. Cameron says that it has a 

 luteous apex ; but in the " Synopsis of Species " he separates it from 

 spinarum as having the " middle lobe of the mesonotum black," so 

 that I presume this last character is either inconstant or inconspicuous. 

 Konow has always considered Scutellaria, C, to be a good species and 

 identical with one known to himself from France and Germany. But 

 he says also that the characters of the latter do not quite agree with 

 those attributed to Scutellaria?, C, by its author, and I do not at 

 present understand the reasoning of a passage in the Deutsche 

 Entomologische Zeitschrift for 1886, in which he argues for its 

 identity with the species now under consideration. I have long 

 been very wishful to see a British specimen of Scutellaria?, C. ; and 

 in the autumn of 1906 my hopes were raised high by receiving 

 from Mr. T. A. Coward, of Bowdon, Cheshire, living larvae, which he 

 naturally thought belonged to that species, since they were found on 

 its recorded food-plant, Scutellaria galericulata, and exactly agreed 

 with the description aud figure of the larva in Mr. Cameron's Mono- 

 graph (see Ent. Mo. Mag., Oct., 1906). From these, however, in the 

 following spring, one imago only resulted, which was an undoubted 

 and perfectly normal ? of lineolata. And Herr Konow, to whom I 

 sent it and who agreed that it was nothing but lineolata, then told 

 me that he did not believe that either species was really attached to 

 that plant in particular, but that the polyphagous larvae of either 

 species might be found on it merely by accident in places where it 

 happened to be frequent. It is much to be wished that further 

 captures may throw light on the identity of Mr. Cameron's species 

 and the validity and constancy of the characters on which it has been 

 separated, for the types were bred by the author (from larvae taken 

 by Mr. Ilarker at Gloucester) as long ago as 1880, and it is therefore 

 high time that we should have some later record of it, if it is to be 

 retained in future British lists. 



I 2 



