262 f'^P"^^ 



sence of a few fine wrinkles only, without any plait or fold on the under-surface of 

 the mine, this plait being present in all the species mentioned above with the 

 exception of rohoris, in which it is completely absent as in distentella. 



Allusion has already been made to the general likeness of the mine of rohoris to 

 one form of that of distentella, and this additional and important resemblance might 

 be expected, at least in some instances, to make it a matter of difficulty to distinguish | 

 between them by an external examination alone ; opening the mine to ascertain the I 

 condition of the pupa would settle the question at once, but as this is an operation \ 

 not unattended with danger, any means by which it can be avoided would be desir- j 

 able. Now rohoris, it is well known, leaves a large patch of parenchyma untouched 1 

 in the middle of the mine upon which to spin its cocoon, and contrasting strongly | 

 with the skeletonized portion all round ; but in distentella this patch is not only | 

 much smaller, but, what is more important, it is imperfect, the larva having nibbled j 

 little holes all over it or even broken it up into two portions, — a careless, slovenly j 

 habit, perhaps, correlated with the absence of a cocoon. This difference in the 

 manner in which the leaf has been browsed is so easy of recognition and, so far as 

 my experience goes, so reliable, that such minor points as the lesser arching of the 

 leaf in rohoris, and the fewer and finer wrinkles on the under-side are scarcely wanted 

 to decide between them. 



My specimens were collected in September and October on under-growtli in a 

 wood, and I have again, in the autumn just past, met with a few more in the same 

 locality. It appears to prefer small-leaved bushes. — John II. Wood, Tarrington, 

 Ledbury : February, 1886. 



Lithocolletis sorhi, Frey. — The identity of the Lithocolletis from mountian ash, 

 generally known as aucupariella, Scott, has long been rather a sore point with me, 

 as I have always (though almost single handed) maintained its distinctness from 

 pomifoliella. Within the last two years, certain fresh facts connected with it have 

 tended still more to confirm me in my opinion that it is truly a good and distinct 

 species. In the autumn of 1854, I was in a small plantation in the upper part of 

 Weardale, on the edge of the moors, where a few small trees of Prunus padus were 

 growing. L. sorhi was plentiful on the mountain ash, as it usually is with us, at 

 high elevations. I caught sight of a Lithocolletis mine on the Prunus, and further 

 search produced more ; in all about two dozen. Thinking that it might be a novelty 

 I communicated at once with Mr. Stainton, who told me that a species from the 

 Prunus padus was known on the Continent as padella, Glitz. 



A fair proportion of them duly emerged the following spring, identical with the 

 mountain ash species. I forwarded them to Mr. Stainton at the end of the season. 

 He told me that the continental specimens were lighter and brighter in colour, but 

 declined to give any opinion as to their distinctness from pomifoliella. Looking 

 over them very carefully one day, I noticed, for the first time, that the tarsi were 

 different to those of pomifoliella, which are pale and ringed with dark, but, like those 

 of spinicolella, pale and unicolorous. Now I never find either spinicolella in the 

 sloe, or pomifoliella in the hawthorn on the high grounds where I take the mines of 

 sorhi. I have been told that mines are common in the South of England in the 

 mountain ash, and it will bo of interest to hear to which group tlic moths produced 



