82 [April, 



A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIES KNOWN 



AS LITA OCELLATELLA, STATNTON. 



BY JOHN HARTLEY DURRANT, F.E.S., Memb. Soc. Ent. de France. 



In Mr. Baiikes' valuable paper, dealing with the instahUella group 

 of the genus Lita (Ent. Mo. Mag , XXX, 127 [IS94]), we find the 

 following passage : " Qeleehia {Lita) ocellatella was first described and 

 named by Mr. Stainton in Ent. Ann., 1859, pp. 151-2, from specimens 

 hred (Ent. Mo. Mag., XTX. p 252) by Mr. Thomas Boyd from larva) 

 found feeding, in May, in flower-heads of Beta marifima at the Lizard 

 in Cornwall. * * The name must, therefore, be retained for this 

 species, of which I have seen in Mr Wollaston's collection one of 

 the examples taken by him at Porto Sancto (E. A., 1S59, pp. 151-2)." 

 There are two descriptions of Gelecliia ocellatella by Stainton : — 



(1.) Ann. and Mag. N. H. (3 s). III, 212 (1S59) ; 



(2.) Ent. Ann , 1859, 151-2. 



In the Annual we find the description of " GelecJila ocellatella, 

 Stainton," but the next species is referred to as " Gelecliia suhdecur- 

 tella, n. sp.," on succeeding pages are to be found " Ghjpliipteryx 

 cladiella, n. sp." " Coleophora salinella, n. sp.," &c. Why is one 

 followed by ''Stainton," and the others by''n. sp."? The reason 

 appears obvious, because this is not the original description of 

 ocellatella. 



In the Annals, Stainton described this insect from Porto Santo 

 as " Gelecliia ocellatella, n. sp. ;" and in the Annual he wrote : " Except 

 a few specimens taken by Mr. "Wollaston at Porto Sancto, this species 

 was entirely unknown, till Mr. Boyd met with it in Cornwall, at 

 the Lizard, last May." 



In the Annals we find no reference to the Cornish specimens, 

 while in the Annual both the Madeiran and Cornish specimens are 

 recorded. It appears, therefore, that the name Gelecliia ocellatella 

 was originally given to the Madeiran specimens, and probably the MS. 

 had been sent for publication in the Annals before the discovery was 

 made that the species occurred also in this country. 



In the Annals there is only a Latin diagnosis, while in the Annual 

 the species is described in both Latin and English. The Latin 

 descriptions are almost identical — and personally I have no doubt that 

 the description in the Annals has been used as the foundation of the 

 Latin description in the Annual, with the addition of more exact 

 definition rendered possible by the acquisition of finer specimens. If 

 further evidence is necessary to bear out my contention that the 

 description published in the Annals was written first, it will be found 

 in the comparison with allied species. 



