60 [August, 



Last January I received from Mr. W. H. B. Fletcher an intima- 

 tion that he thought he had found the larva of the Isle of Wight 

 insect, for on the spot where he had formerly taken the imago freely, 

 he had swept early in September a number of larvae feeding on the 

 flowers of Statice Umonium, using an empty flower as a case, much in 

 the style of Gelechia suhocellea, but when full-fed boring into the 

 flower-stem of the food-plant, or into the culm of a grass, leaving the 

 case outside. The case afterwards generally falling off, leaving only 

 the hole, carefully closed with silk, to indicate the presence of the 

 larva within. 



In May, Mr. Fletcher, having spent a night at Freshwater, sent 

 me some old stems of the Statice Umonium, containing larvae still un- 

 changed, and from these I have, during the past fortnight, bred a nice 

 series of the perfect insect. 



That an insect allied to the Qoniodoma auroguttella, which Fischer 

 von E/Oslerstamm had so elaborately figured, occurred amongst a 

 Statice at Cannes, has already been recorded in the Annales de la 

 Sociefce Entomologique de France, 1882, bull, cxlix, by M. E. L. 

 Eagonot, who proposed for it the name of Goniodoma Millierella, but 

 this insect from the South of France does not appear to be identical 

 with our Isle of Wight insect. 



1° Millierella is said to be smaller than auroguttella ; now it is 

 exactly the reverse with our Isle of Wight species, 



2° No mention is made under Millierella of the much darker 

 ground-colour, which so readily attracts our attention when contem-o 

 plating the species from the Isle of Wight. ' 



3° The great difference shown between auroguttella and the Isltt 

 of Wight insect in the colouring of the apical portion of the costaij 

 cilia, is not alluded to by Hagonot in the brief notice given of Millier\ 

 ella. Hence I am forced to conclude that our British species is noK 

 identical with the Millierella of Bagonot, and I would propose for i 

 the name of limoniella ; further, as it would hardly be suitable t<l 

 place it in the genus Goniodoma, its habitation not showing any angles 

 I would prefer to locate it, for the present at least, in the genun 

 Coleopliora, of which we now know several species, that bore into stemsj 

 such as C. salicornice, Z. (hinotapennella, Stn., non. Dup.), and the veri 

 handsome South Bussian C. argyrella, H.-S., hence we cannot loo]c 

 upon that habit as furnishing a sufiicient justification for separating 

 individual species from the main genus Coleophora. 



Therefore, I would call the species Coleophora limoniella ; it mm 

 be distinguished from the Austrian auroguttella easily, thus .- — ExpanSii 



