O [June, 



(;^i\l.) Under tlio luimo of saturnalia, 2 cT fi*<^iii the Isle of 

 AVigbt, and 1 ^ from Hungerford, AVilts, smaller than the last two 

 species with narrower wings, and with smaller scales. These are quite 

 devoid of the costal fold. 



(4th.) Also under the name of safurnana, 1 (^ from Teignmouth, 

 and 1 (^ from Darlington, having the costal fold quite distinctly, very 

 slightly larger than No. 3, and rather more brightly clothed with 

 yellowish scales and leaden lines. 



(oth.) Fhnuhana. — Very numerous specimens from many localities, 

 all the males destitute of the costal fold. These are of the same size 

 as Nos. 3 and 4, with rather broader wings and fewer yellowish scales. 



(Gth.) Phimhagana. — Many specimens from various places, with 

 narrower wings than any of the preceding, and brighter metallic lines, 

 but variable in size, and in abundance of the yellow scales, all the 

 males having the costal fold, except 



(7th.) Under the name of phimhagana, 2 ^ from Galway, quite 

 like the A^vker pJumhagana in form and width of wings, but without 

 the costal fold. Twenty-five years ago I took many specimens of this 

 form in the County Galway, but damp, from many journeys and moist 

 climates, injured them, so that the rest were destroyed. 



(8th.) Among my coutinental types, 3 ^ from Prof. Zeller, 

 labelled saturnana, two of them having also Heinemann s label on the 

 pins, one of which last has the costal fold most distinctly, and the other 

 two are as distinctly destitute of it. Otherwise these three are 

 absolutely alike, they cannot be separated by any other character 

 that I am able to see. They resemble Nos. 1 and 2 pretty closely, 

 but are yellower. 



In the classification adoJDted by AVilkinson these species — so 

 closely allied that they can only be separated by a slight structural 

 character, hardly visible to the naked eye, and obtaining only in one 

 sex — would be placed, not only in separate genera, but in distinct 

 families, widely separated from each other. It is desirable, therefore, 

 to examine more closely into the value of this peculiarity of the males 

 of so many species of Tortrices — the costal fold — which is entirely 

 ignored in the arrangement of Guenee and Doubleday, but which 

 forms one of the bases of classification in the arrangement followed 

 on the continent, and was regarded by Wilkinson as of such vital 

 importance, that he instituted the family Flicatce solely to receive all 

 the species favoured with this appendage. The value of such a classi- 

 fication as this is best shown by the table below, in which some of the 

 genera and species of the family Plicatce are arranged side by side 



