170 THE entomologist's record. 



the Knt. Mo. ilari., 1881, xvii., p. 210, stating that there are no pro- 

 legs on the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th segments in the larva iihjpkica, 

 and in figure, a dorso-lateral view, the prolegs are not visible. In the 

 case of mi Buckler's figures are beautiful and the description is correct. 



South figures the larva of )ni correctly, but contents himself with 

 saying that that of <ilypltica is very similar. Tutt, in his British Moths, 

 avoids all mention of the legs of both species. 



The Continental authors are almost as confusing. Hiibner's 

 figure of (jlyphica, in his Geschirhte Enropa'ischer Schntetterlinf/e Raiipen, 

 is a good one, except that the first pair of prolegs is left out. Herrich- 

 Schiiffer in his description makes the same blunder. Hofmann, in the 

 Eitropiiischcn ScJnuetterUn(i''i> Haiijioi, 1874, figures the larva of (jlyphica 

 with five pairs of prolegs, making it sixteen footed, and gives no num- 

 ber in his meagre description. In the 1893 edition he gives a new 

 lateral view of the larva with only three pairs of legs, but in the text 

 he is right, making mi twelve footed and olyphica fourteen footed. In 

 the 1910 (Spuler) edition the same figure appears with the addition of 

 a small pair of prolegs on the 8th segment, to make the figure agree 

 with the text. Lampert, (Tross-Srlniiettt'dinye iriid lionpen Mitt.eleii- 

 ropan, 1906, makes no mistake in his description, but his figure shows 

 the larva of ylyphica like that of ////, with the first two pairs of prolegs 

 absent. 



Kirby, in his European ButterjUea and Moths, 1882, appears to have 

 been the first to describe both larvae correctly. Beitz gives the name 

 (ronospileia, Hbn., to the genus, but says that the first and second pairs 

 of prolegs are aborted. He divides the genus into two sections based 

 on a dift'erence in the tibial spines. Mi falls into the first, (./lyphica 

 into the second section. 



Hampson attaches greater importance to this difference in the tibial 

 spines, and places mi in the genus Eudidimera, and ylyphica in 

 Go)io>ipileia. 



This appears to me more correct, because apart from the larval 

 difference the genitalia of these two species are widely different, as 

 Pierce has shown in his Cienitalia of tJie Xoctuidae, and as I have con- 

 firmed by my own preparations. The harpes in ylyphica are extremely 

 asymmetrical, whereas those of mi are almost symmetrical. Even 

 with Hampson's separation neither EncUdimera nor Gonospileia are 

 homogeneous, as I hope to prove in a second paper. 



The New Forest in the rain. 



By RUSSELL E. JAMES, F.E.S. 



It is now many years since I last visited the New Forest, and the 

 fact that my son bad never been there in the "butterfly" time 

 prompted me to arrange a short holiday in early July. The cold wet 

 weather began about the date we fixed to start, and during our stay 

 with the exception of one or two very short spells it rained 

 continuously. In spite of this handicap we worked away steadily and 

 in the end came out with very good results, although needless to say, it 

 proved less of a "butterfly" holiday than we had anticipated. 



We left Waterloo mid-day on the 2nd and had arranged to spend 

 the first few days at a village just over the Dorset border from 

 Fordingbridge, where in 1910 I had found Triphaena suhaequa in 



