104 THE entomologist's record. 



like those of this group, is not a very promising statement. Is there 

 only " one form " of tamarisciata larva? 



In conclusion I would ask what Mr. Prout wants to prove ? He 

 says that Mr. Holmes' draAving of the larva is more like the drawings 

 of some larvae referred to fra.rinata than to the only known drawing 

 referred to tamarisciata. If so, what does it prove? Again, 

 why was my note, published June 15th, 1906, premature ? I had 

 done then all that it is possible for anyone to do now — heard all 

 Mr. Holmes had to say while the matter was quite fresh, saw specimens, 

 picture of larva, compared both with all the British Museum material, 

 and all the available literature (with figures) of imagines and 

 larv* at South Kensington. And why say on the strength of 

 this that " Mr. Tutt had not seen the larvae, and evidently only 

 determined the species by the foodplant"? Has Mr. Prout seen 

 " the larvfe," particularly the larvte of the imagines from which I 

 recognised the species at the British Museum ? It is obvious neither of 

 us could. Has he seen a drawing only, made from one of Mrs. Holmes' 

 captures? If so, was this a colour-drawing only, or is it a detailed 

 one with all the structural details worked out by a competent entomo- 

 logical biologist? and does turning up all the literature, and com- 

 paring the specimens with those in the British Museum collection, 

 show that I " evidently only determined the species on the food- 

 plant " ? I still maintain that the specimens I saw at South Kensington 

 were those of K. taitmrisciata, and no entomologist in Europe 

 is likely to convince me of the error of my judgment, Avithout first 

 proving that the E. tamarisciata of the British Museum collection bred 

 from tamarisk are not of this species (or form). I have handed over my 

 Geometrid soul's salvation to Mr. Prout for a long time, I owe to 

 him kindnesses and advice on hundreds of critical points whilst 

 writing my Natural History of the British Lepidoptera, but I do know 

 better than he on what grounds I determined the Cornish examples as 

 tamarisciata, and there is no reason why any lepidopterist, for whose 

 opinion I care, should think that I did this prematurely and without 

 due consideration. 



Some Tineids of Wimbledon Common. 



By ALFllED SICH, F.E.S. 



In sending this small contribution towards a list of the Lepidoptera 

 of Wimbledon, I may state that had I worked the Common with a 

 view of making a list of its Tineid inhabitants, my record would have 

 included a far greater number of species. The following species are 

 those of which I find mention made for one reason or another in my 

 notes. 



Argyresthia nitidella, P., var. ossea, Hw. — I took a nice specimen of 

 this on August 15th, 1905. Two A. retinella, Z., taken June 30th, 

 1906. In 1905, A. yoedartella, L., and its golden aberration Avere very 

 abundant. Cedestis farinatella occurred on pine, August 15th, 1905. 

 Imagines of Cerostoma nemorella, L., and C. xylostella, L., bred from 

 larvje from the Common, Avere exhibited by Mr. Penn-Gaskill at the 

 South London Entomological and Natural History Society, June 28th, 

 1906. Epithectis moufetella, Schift"., one imago taken oft' a leaf of 

 honeysuckle, 1905. Batrachedra praeanytista, Hav., seA'eral specimens 



