1885.] 37 



widely whitish-yellow. Frons one-half longer than wide, its central keels 

 equidistant from the side keels and each other. Central keel of the clypeus 

 abbreviated at the base albosignata, Dahl. 



4 (3). Lurid-fuscous, a wide stripe down the crown ; pronotum and scutellum 

 paler, the first three dorsal segments of the abdomen widely whitish - 

 yellow in the middle ; antennae black, clypeus and legs blackish. Frons 

 two-thirds longer than wide, its central keels much approximated. Clypeus 

 without any central keel (brachypterous, ? ) longicornis, Sahib. 



A. alhosignata, which appears to be a species well-known on the continent, is 

 (Ent. Mo. Mag., vii, 196) recorded as British on the strength of sis pupae, presum- 

 ably because they presented the facial characters assigned to this genus. In order, 

 however, to substantiate the claim of this species to a place in our British list, it is 

 desirable that some evidence should be adduced to show that the nymphs (or pupse) 

 in question really pertain to the genus Achorotile at all, for it is certain that the 

 nymphs of Lihurnia unicolor, L. forcipata, and Stiroma pteridis display the facial 

 characters of adult Achorotile. Amongst some hundreds of Delphacid nymphs 

 from widely different localities, which I have collected continuously since last 

 August, not one has occuri'ed which does not present the Achorotile-face, but in 

 most instances I am unable to refer the nymph to its adult form. 



Under these circumstances, the question arises, what is A. hivittata, Boh. ? for, 

 notwithstanding the contrary opinion of Boheman and Stal, recent authors seem 

 agreed that it is some Delphacid in the nymph state, although there is some diversity 

 of opinion as to which of the known species it should be attached. It is pretty 

 clearly the insect which the Rev. T. A. Marshall had in view when writing of the 

 larva of Liburnia neglecta (Ent. Mo. Mag., i, 274), and Dr. J. Sahlberg (Not. Fenn., 

 xii, 413) considers that it is the larva of Lihurnia notula, while Fieber, who writes 

 (Les Cicadines d'Europe, part iv, 89) as if he had examined the original, thought it 

 was the ? nymph of A. alhosignata. It is probable, however, that tlie opinion of the 

 Eev. T. A. Marshall is very near the truth, for, according to my local experience, 

 A. hivittata occurs in company with Lihurnia hrevipennis, Boh., = hyalinipennis, 

 Stal (a species not recognised by him, and very closely allied to neglecta). Just at 

 the time the latter is reaching maturity, in a woodland locality far too dry for 

 Lih. notula, 1 have taken both A. hivittata and L. hrevipennis at roots of coarse 

 grass, in one locality near here from the 2Uth August to 14th October, after which 

 date they had apparently almost all gone down for hibernation, for although I have 

 since taken one or two stragglers of Lib. hrevipennis, my repeated efforts to meet 

 with A. hivittata also have hitherto been unavailing. 



It would seem from the premises that it is premature to regard the genus 

 Achorotile as British until we are in possession of native examples in the adult 

 state. — J. Edwards, 131, Rupert Street, Norwich : June 29th, 1885. 



Plusia chrysitis with supposed fungoid growths on the head. — I send you a 



specimen of Plusia chrysitis with its eyes injured by a fungus ; kindly inform me, 



F 2 



