1910.] 85 



confused togetlier. These lie there separated under the names 

 " verrucella, Hiib.," and " ruhrotihiella, F.E.," giving detailed descrip- 

 tions of both, pointing out the principal distinctions that he found 

 between them, and stating that, although the former had been taken in 

 some numbers at Forest Hill, near London, the only British example 

 of the latter known to him was one in his own collection, captured near 

 Portsmouth by Mr. Moncreaff. My friend adhered to this conclusion 

 in Lep. Brit. IsL, x, 10-13 (1904). In Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, xv, 255 

 (1904), I gave the Isle of Wight and South Devon as additional 

 localities for the species which, as it appeared to me, Barrett had 

 differentiated as the true verrucella, and, erroneously assuming that 

 an unidentified individual, found in a British collection and transferred 

 to my owTi, represented the insect to which he assigned the name 

 ruhrotihiella, because it agreed with his description in certain important 

 details, I referred to it as the only example of the latter that had come 

 imder my notice. 



At the dispersal of Mr. Barrett's Phycitidx in 1906, his British 

 series of A. verrucella and ruhrotihiella, as finally arranged and labelled 

 by him, passed into my possession, the former being represented by 

 three specimens from Forest Hill, and the latter by the solitary 

 Portsmouth individual. This last proved to be totally distinct from 

 my supposed example of ruhrotihiella, which, with the kind assistance 

 of Sir GTeorge F. Hampson, has since been identified as referable to 

 Trachonitis cristella, Hb., a Phycid with rather a wide distribution on 

 the Continent, but hardly likely to occur in Britain. Perhaps, there- 

 fore, the specimen in qtiestion, which has certainly been re-pinned, is 

 of Continental origin. 



Dr. T. A. Chapmap, having kindly added to my collection the 

 two G-ennan exponents of rtibrotihieUa referred to by Barrett (to 

 whom they formerly belonged) in Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, xiv, 166, 

 I have now before me all the individuals of both this and verrucella 

 upon which Barrett's notes were based, with the exception of those 

 that he borrowed from McLachlan. And having seen McLachlan's 

 own series during his life-time, and having more recently examined, in 

 the national British collection, three individuals standing as " Acro- 

 hasis tumidana, Schiff. =^ ruhrotihiella, F.B,.," two of which are labelled 

 as taken at Forest Hill by McLachlan, while the third is indicated as 

 also captured there by him, I have no hesitation in saying that 

 McLachlan's Forest Hill specimens are identical with those, from the 

 same locality, which stood in the Barrett collection, and are now before 

 me. A careful comparison of Barrett's notes in Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, 



