1885.1 191 



the species generally known as tanaceti should be called saturnana, a species, I believe, 

 never yet bred till now, and which the description as given in the Manual exactly 

 suits. 



I think I can throw some light, or, rather, darkness, upon the existence of another 

 species — senectana. No one exactly knows what this insect is. There is one speci- 

 men so named in the Doubleday collection, which, if- 1 mistake not, is a female 

 herhosana. This sex of that species would appear to be scarce. I only bred one ? 

 to about three dozen S • It is smaller and darker than the <? , and has the triangular 

 paler blotch on the inner margin more irregular, and that at the anal angle more 

 metallic. D. tanaceti, probably like herhosana, feeds on both tansy and yarrow 

 roots. Mr. Barrett remarks that it occurs on the coast of Pembroke, where no tansy 

 grows. I have written to Mr. Thompson, of Stantonbury, formerly of Crewe, who 

 is named by Mr. Stainton as the original captor of tanaceti, to ask him to allow me 

 to see, if he has them, any of the original specimens. He replies that he sent many 

 of his original captures of this species to Messrs. Douglas, Stainton, and other 

 London collectors, and that Mr. Stainton, before naming them, sent them to Prof. 

 Zeller. Mr. Thompson's own specimens being set on old pins, corroded, and all 

 but one were replaced by specimens sent him by Mr. Grrigg, of which he remarks, 

 " but these are not exactly like mine." I should think not. He has sent me his 

 single remaining specimen — a $ — but that is quite enough : it is a true herhosana, ^ • 

 — W. Wareen, Merton Cottage, Cambridge : October 12th, 1884. 



[Mr. Douglas has now forwarded me three specimens of Dichrorhampha tanaceti 

 from his cabinet, which are very liTcely to be those sent to him by Mr. Thompson, and 

 I find that these are undoubtedly identical with my herhosana. It seems, therefore, 

 that the name herhosana should drop, but I am not yet satisfied that the species 

 we usually find about tansy in the South is identical with saturnana. — C. G-. B.J 



Uphippiphora tetragonana hred. — By a lucky chance, this summer, I hap- 

 pened to breed three examples of this rather rare Tortrix, which had hitherto eluded 

 all attempts to discover its earlier stage. Being in want of Spilonota incarnatana, 

 I went down to the coast for the larvae. Unthinkingly, I deferred my visit (as the 

 event proved) too long ; as all my supposed incarnatana larvae, and they were not 

 many, emerged as rohorana to my great annoyance. As a beginner, I also wanted 

 Bergmanniana, and duly collected the green larvse as well. These came out all 

 right ; but with them three examples of what I took (at the time) to be Semasia 

 populana. Lately, when putting away my year's captures, I had a more careful 

 inspection of these examples, and felt rather in doubt about them. Writing to 

 Mr. Barrett about other matters, I had mentioned the breeding of these populana 

 ,.;; from the rose-feeding larvse. He then desired to see them, and I sent them, with 

 jt some other things, and the result was that thej proved to be very small examples of 

 U. tetragonana. They may have been dwarfed from the supply of food failing, for 

 j! I took no particular care of them, as I took for granted that they were all the 

 »' common Bergmanniana. No doubt, inland, the food p]ant will be Rosa canina, 

 '? or whichever species is the common one where the insect occurs. Here, most 

 '' probably canina, as it is our common rose. Next year I hope to make the discovery 

 K more complete. — J. Sang, 33, Oxford Street, Darlington : November, 1884. 



