1882.] 189 



contrast to the ordinary form of the insect is very beautiful. This capture was made 

 by the Vice-President, the Kev. Clennell Wilkinson, and the insect is now in his 

 cabinet. — Chas. Gr. Barrett, Pembroke : 14<th December, 1881. 



A neio species of Coleophora (C. adjunctella, Hodgk.J. — Quite a dozen years ago, 

 on a salt marsh beneath Humphrey Head, near Ulverston, I took a considerable num- 

 ber of this insect, and sent it away pretty freely as Col. salinella ; about three years 

 ago I paid a visit with Mr. Threlfall to the same place, and a two days' hunt only 

 yielded a score or so for each of us ; since then I have made the acquaintance of the 

 true C. salinella which I find is a totally distinct species from mine, C. salinella being 

 a larger insect and of a pale yellow colour, whereas the insect which I propose to 

 name Col. adjunctelJa is a shorter winged insect and of an olive-brown ground 

 shade, it is clearly distinct from caspititiella by the white streak that runs along 

 the costa ; also the wings are more arched, and in fine specimens there is almost an 

 absence of streaks ; the antennae are much darker, nearly black and more robust 

 than in C. ccespititiella. The food of the larva has yet to be discovered ; there were 

 neither rushes nor Luzula about that I remember ; we had to get them by creeping 

 on our hands and knees, the place being too bare to sweep and had to place our backs 

 igainst the wind when we wanted to box any of the specimens. 



Mr. Sang looked at my fine series and agrees with me as to its distinctness. — 

 J. B. Hodqkinson, 15, Spring Bank, Preston : December 5th, 1881. 



[Mr. Hodgkinson's insect is very distinct from any species of the genus with 

 which I am acquainted. It resembles most nearly C. badiipennella, having like that 

 insect a distinct pale costal streak from the base to the costal cilia, but the ground 

 colour of the wings is far glossier than in C. badiipennella. — H. T. S.] 



Larvae of Scopula lutealis and S. prunalis. — Probably, during the last two 

 seasons, I have collected and sent away more larvae of lutealis than any one else in 

 Britain ; and I believe the very larvae figured and described by Mr. Buckler were 

 sent from here to Mr. Fletcher by myself. [Yes, this is so.— Eds.] With care, the 

 two species are separable, but yet they are so much alike that I have scarcely ever 

 sent away a batch of lutealis without saying " possibly a few prunalis may be mixed 

 with them." I have had a tolerable batch of each species feeding side by side, and 

 I have no hesitation in saying that only those accustomed to larva-rearing would 

 have distinguished one from the other. The distinguishing character, I think, is the 

 black spot so distinct on each side of the second segment in prunalis, but absent in 

 lutealis. All being well at the end of May or early in June (Mr. Buckler's were 

 late specimens), I shall be pleased to send these larvae to any Lepidopterist who would 

 care to compare the two species. I described this larva from a single specimen in 

 1877 (see Ent. Mo. Mag.,xiv, 114).— GrEO. T. Porritt, Highroyd House, Hudders- 

 field : December 1st, 1881. 



Sericomyia borealis "singing " tohile at rest (cf. p. 159, ante). — A tinted figure 

 of Sericomyia borealis will be found in my " Insect "Variety," pi. iv, fig. 7, and at 

 [page 216 there is the following remark. " In addition to the instances preferred, I 

 ve heard the primitive spiracular notes of the hover-flies given out by a showy 

 northern species, Sericomyia borealis, that frequents brambles in the "West High- 

 lands, as it alighted on rotten stumps with closed wings, to fulfil the maternal duty 



