NOTES ON COLLECTING. 



265 



moon not being right when they first emerged. On May 25th and 

 29th Micropterix aureatella was abundant, as noted {antea, p. 241), and 

 SO also has been M. seppella. On June 27th, an afternoon in a favouiite 

 lane near here gave Mdanippe rivata in plenty, a very few Antidea 

 rnbidata, and one A. sinuata (the first J have ever taken). Another 

 visit to the same lane on July 11th, especially for Cidaria picata, 

 resulted in fifteen of that insect and a few ill. rivata and M. miamiidata. 

 Latterly traps have been doing better, and, on July 18th, I got in them 

 a 2 /I. sinuata (which, however, failed to oblige with ova). Cleora 

 lic/ienaria males have been plentiful, with two females (rather unusual), 

 and Boaniiia repandata var. conversaria has not been uncommon, but 

 not in very good order. — E. F. Studd, M.A., Oxton, Exeter. July 

 27th, 1904. 



Early appearance of the second-brood of Agdistis bennetii. — 

 The anaazing change that took place in the weather in the early 

 summer had a marvellous effect on Agdistis bennetii. Although the 

 first brood was on throughout May and until the end of the month, 

 the larvae of the second-brood fed up with such marvellous rapidity, and 

 pupated so early that the imagines were well out by July 19th, nearly 

 a month earlier than in the previous wet and cold season. It was also 

 abundant compared with the previous year. The season, therefore, 

 late as it was until June for everything, afi'ected some species exceed- 

 ingly quickly, and produced maturity very rapidly. Specimens of the 

 second-brood, however, kept emerging for quite a month this year, so 

 that this brood also was spread over a fairly long time. — J. Ovenden, 

 Frindsbury Road, Strood, Kent. Aui/ust 2lth, 1904. 



Remarks on Practical Hints for July. — Mr. Tutt will, I feel sure, 

 forgive me for passing friendly criticism on two of the series of 

 "Practical Hints " from his pen, published antea, pp. 207-9 : — (1) In 

 Hint 6 it seems strange to find one, who is so exceptionally well up-to- 

 date in all matters of nomenclature, writing of '' Lithosia stramineola," 

 as though he still clung to the antiquated notions that the form in 

 question is specifically distinct from Lithusia (/riseula, and that '^ stfa- 

 tnineola " is the oldest known name for it. I need only add that the 

 form to which he refers has been correctly entered in the best cata- 

 logues that have been published during the last thirty years and more 

 as Lithosia ;iriseola var. Jiava, Haw*. (2) Hint 18 (I refer to the first 

 of the two so numbered, the number of the second should have been 

 "20") seems to me a sadly unpractical one. I have always understood 

 that bin-h is the only known foodplant of " Lophopteryx cannelita," and 

 if this idea is correct, one certainly might search for a very long time 

 before finding its cocoon at the base of oaA'-treest ! In his latest Cataloy 

 (1901), Staudinger excludes carmelita from the genus Lophopteryx, and 

 includes it in ()dontusia\. — Eustace R. Bankes, Norden, Corfe Castle. 

 July 26i/», 1904. 



* Mr. Bankes is quite right ; it is really very blameworthy, although 

 we really did not know that this was so certainly the correct synonymy. We had 

 an idea that it was quite open to question whether flava. Fab., is not possibly the 

 right name to use. Leaving aside the synonymy, our note should have been 

 Litlio.sia ab. (not var.) stmmineola. — Ed. 



+ A lapsus calami. It should, of course, be birch. — Eu. 



I We have not time to work out the point of synonymy that Mr. Bankes here 

 raises, except to say that the chances are always great against Staudinger being 

 right in any of the genera that he has not copied direct from some authority 



