290 r January, 



Abnormality in Epinephele Hyperanthus. — On July 22nd, 1883, I took two 

 interesting specimens of E. Hyperanthus, shewing a want of symmetry on the under- 

 side. The typical form of the species has on the under-side (according to Newman) 

 eight ocelli, three on the upper, and five on the lower wing. These we will call 

 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,* and thus we should give Newman's type specimen a formula 

 thus— left wings, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ; right wings,- ditto. A spotless form would 

 be represented thus— 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ; and in the same way any other specimen 

 might be readily described by substituting a cypher for an absent spot, and placing 

 a convenient figure, say X, for any extra ocellus ; and also when two ocelli become 

 partly united they may be expressed by bracketing tliem together, for instance, 

 Newman figures a variety which would have a formula thus — 1, 2, 3 (4, 5, X,) 6, 7, 8. 

 Having explained my plan, I will now adapt it to my two asymmetrical specimens 

 which I caught near Warlingham, in Surrey. The first, the more remarkable, has a 

 formula 1, 2, 3 (4, 5,) X, 6, 7, 8, for the right under-side, but on the left side it is 

 1, 2, (4, 5, X,) 6, 7, 8. The second specimen has the right side 1, 2, 3 (4, 5,) X, 6, 7, 8, 

 as before, but the left is 1, 2, 3 (4, 5, X,) 6, 7, 8. Thus we see that in both cases the 

 additional small spot X was united with 5 on the left, but disunited on the right 

 side, while in one specimen the 3rd ocellus on the upper wing was entirely absent on 

 one side, but well marked on the other. I sent the specimens to Mr. Kane, of 

 Dublin, who tells me that such aberrations are rare. Can any reader remember a 

 similar instance ? — T. D. A. Cockeeell, Bedford Park, W. : November, 1884. 



Tapino.ttola Bondii in the Island of Rugen. — In the Stettiner entomologische 

 Zeitung, 1884, p. 432, Major Alex, von Homeyer records the capture by him, on ^ 

 August 2nd, 1879, of a (? near Stubenkammer in Eiigen. We do not think the f 

 insect had hitherto been recorded from other than its old localities, viz., South of ) 

 England, and G-reece. — Eds. | 



Note on Dichrorhampha tanaceti. — I have long been puzzled as to what this insect ■ 

 really is. Mr. Stainton, in the Manual, includes it in the genus Bichrorhampha, > 

 the males of which possess a costal fold. In all the specimens which have been sent 

 to me as tanaceti, the males have no fold, nor have I been able to detect one in the i 

 series of the insect I have observed elsewhere. If these insects are tanaceti, Mr. t 

 Stainton must have had some other species before him when he wrote his description 

 for the Manual. 



On examining the late Mr. Doubleday's collection at the Bethnal G-reen Museum 

 a short time ago, I found, to my surprise, the species tanaceti represented there by 

 only three specimens, all males, with the fold, but most certainly all D. herbosana, or, 

 rather, what we have for some years been calling by that name. 



D. herbosana I myself bred in Yorkshire from roots of tansy and yarrow, among 

 which plants I also cauglit them flying in numbers, and I cannot be mistaken about 

 the species. 



Again, Mr. Elisha has this season bred from roots of tansy a long series of what 

 he calls tanaceti, and which agree exactly with the specimens sent to me under that 

 name. I conclude, therefore, that the name tanaceti, which stands in the Doubledaj 

 collection, applies to what we now call herbosana, a true Bichrorhampha, and that J 



^nn 



* The system I here propose is taken from that in use for indicating the arrangement of the : L 

 bands of certam Helices. I thmk it would be found to serve for all the Satyridce. , ^' 



LL 



