198 [January, 



ber, the two remaining larvae hibernated. A. Tiolosericata ; bred several moths 

 from 7th to 20th September, no larva hibernating. All the above were fed upon 

 Polygonum aviculare, which, fortunately, stands the heat well. 



I may add that I have tried the experiment with several of the hibernating 

 larvae of the liutterflies, and also of the Bomhyces, but have failed in every instance. 

 —A. H. Jones, Shrublands, Eltham : 2nd Octoher, 1872. 



Note on Endopisa nigricana. — At the end of July last, I collected a number of 

 pea-pods containing nearly full-fed larvae of Endopisa nigricana (pisana), and looked 

 to breed moths from them next summer. I was, therefore, much surprised to breed 

 six specimens last month (August), two $ and one? on the 19th, and three? (one 

 each day) on the 20th — 22nd. They were not artificially forced forward, but were 

 kept in a fireless room facing the north, and with the window always open. 



I have failed to find any record of this insect attaining the imago state within 

 three weeks from its larval condition, as it did in this instance. — J. E. Fletchee, 

 9, Pitmaston Road, Worcester : September IQth, 1872. 



Answer to Mr. Ritsema's " Note on Crinodes Sommeri," i^c. — Before answering 

 the more revelant remarks in Mr. Eitsema's notice, I would {apropos of the first 

 paragi-aph) remind him of a common proverb, which in Grermany runs somewhat as 

 follows : — " Der in einem Crystal-palast wohnt, darf keine Steine werfen." A 

 simultaneous attack upon a new genus, in two different Magazines, is calculated to 

 impress one with the idea that the discoverer of the supposed error must have been 

 anxious that his acumen should be widely recognised : as an answer to the entirely 

 unwarranted supposition contained in the said paragraph, I need merely inform 

 Mr. Ritsema of one or two facts, which, had he studied my writings, he might 

 have discovered for himself. Hiibner's ' Sammlung ' has been almost constantly on 

 my table for the last seven years, and I know his figures as well as I know my own. 



I do not make a practice of hunting up every conceivable resemblance in pattern 

 between a new genus and those previously figured in works known to me ; I content 

 myself, at most, with a structural comparison between closely allied forms. 



I did refer in my paper to the genus Dudusa (inadvertently written Dudund), 

 a group to which C. Sommeri probably belongs* ; I had examined two species of this 

 genus, and therefore could speak with confidence of its relationship to Tarsolepis. 



If Hxibner was not attached to the "type system," there is no reason why C. 

 clara of Cramer should not stand as the type of the genus Crino quite as much as 

 C. Sommeri. 



The remainder of Mr. Ritsema's remarks being to a great extent based upon 

 suppositions, I shall content myself with answering his direct statements. He says 

 that the anal tuft entirely covers the sexual organs ; this is not the case with any ol 

 the specimens which I have examined, whether of Crinodes, Dudusa, or Tarsolepis. 



As to the probability of a long cui-ved brush of carmine hairs being concealed 

 about the body of a Crinodes, it is to my mind more preposterous than it would be, 

 were our discussion respecting the identity of the Phillippine Eiisemia bambucina and 



* The females of Dudusa have a zone of spatulated scales round the tail, but of only half the 

 length of those in the males ; the antennas are moderately pectinated, but there are no tufts of 

 long hairs at the base of the abdomen in either sex. — A.G. B. 



