notf:s on the British species of ochsenheimeria hb. 

 desceibed by hawokth. 



BY ALFRED SICH, F.E.S. 



When, a few years ago, I was particularly interested in the species 

 belonging to the genus Ocheenheimeria Huebner, I unfortunately dis- 

 covered that one of our British species was not bearing its earliest 

 name. I say unfortiiuately, because it appeared to me also that 

 it was my duty to call attention to the fact, and I, like many other 

 entomologists, have no desire to substitute less well-known names for 

 those with which we ai"e familiar. In this case, however, as I shall 

 show later, I merely wish to revive the name which was formerly in 

 use. The species in question is that now known as 0. hirdeUa Curtis, 

 but I maintain it should bear the name of ■mediopectineUa Haworth. 

 In 1828 Haworth (Lep. Brit., part IV, pp. 545-546) published descrip- 

 tions of two moths, which he named Ypsol^phus mediopectinellus and 

 Y. tmtrellns. These two descriptions taken together can hardly point 

 to any two British moths more directly than to the two species which 

 we know as Ochsenheimeria birdella Curtis and 0. bisonteUa Zeller. 

 Any doubt, however, that might attach to this conclusion can at once 

 be dispelled by referring to Haworth's types in the collection at 

 the British Museum. The specimen labelled " medinpectinelJns,'" in 

 Haworth's own handwriting, is without any doubt the same species 

 which Curtis named birdella. This species varies somewhat in ground- 

 colour, but Haworth's specimen is of the same ochreous form as that 

 figured by Curtis. The specimen labelled " taureJhis " is not the 

 tanrellus of Schiffermiiller, but the bisonteUa of Zeller. It was not 

 till three years later that John Curtis published the description of his 

 birdella (Brif. Ent., VIII, PI. 344, Feb. 1st, 1831). He probably had 

 some slight acquaintance with Haworth's insect, as he gives a descrip- 

 tion of mediopectineUa and compares it witli his own birdella. From 

 what he says I gather that his specimens and Mr. Bird's were in a 

 better state of preservation than were Haworth's. This would account 

 for the head and antennae appearing less scaly, as Curtis says. The 

 other slight points of difference that he mentions are of little account 

 with a variable species. Stainton, in his account of the genus Ochsen- 

 heimeria (Nat. Hist. Tin., XIII, p. 2, 1873), states that on Aug. 24th, 

 1845, he found a field swarming with a little moth that he had never 

 seen before. He writes : " I caught a few, and then finding it was 

 what we in those days called Lepidocera mediopectineUa, I revisited 



