O THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



lateral hole near the end of the abdomen of one of the Wisley 

 larvffi, which, as I have said, I believe to have been II. maculi- 

 collis. This grub spun a white elongate cocoon, and on May 7th 

 a female Ophionid emerged, which has been kindly identified by 

 Mr, Claude Morley as Pyracmon melanurus, Holmg. Mr. Morley 

 further tells me that this is the first certain confirmation of this 

 species as British, and also is the first definite record of the 

 host of this genus of ichneumons. 



The John Innes Horticultural Institution, Merton, Surrey: 

 November, 1912. 



FURTHER NOTES ON HESPERIID CLASSIFICATION. 



By H. Rowland-Brown, M.A., F.E.S. 



In some previous notes (Entom. xliii. pp. 306-9, and xlv. 

 pp. 5-7) I made an abstract of the work of some French and Swiss 

 lepidopterists engaged in the task of separating the western 

 palsearctic members of the genus Hesperia. With their kind 

 permission I now offer a brief summary of the later discoveries 

 of M. Charles Oberthiir, Dr. J. L. Reverdin, and M. Marcel 

 Rehfous, whose publications during the past year have thrown 

 much additional light upon the problem of the specific identity 

 of the " Black- and- White " Skippers. 



(i) Hesperia alveus, Hb., and Hesperia armoricanus, Obthr. 



First comes the announcement that Hesperia armoricanus, 

 Obthr., included in my list as a var. of alveus, Hb., on the 

 strength of an examination of the male genital armature, is a 

 distinct species, constituting, I think, an epoch-making addition 

 to our knowledge of the group. To M. Oberthiir belongs the 

 credit of distinguishing this smaller Hesperiid, which he de- 

 scribes (Lepid. Comparee, fasc. vi. p. 104) as " neither alveus, nor 

 cirsii, nor carUnce, nor onopordi, though bearing a resemblance 

 to all four species." While Dr. Reverdin, with characteristic 

 thoroughness, has worked out the structural as well as the 

 superficial differences of the two butterflies (Bull. Soc. Lepid. 

 Geneve, vol. ii. fasc. 3, pp. 141-148). With regard to the 

 structure of the appendages, he professes himself quite satisfied 

 that both species present differences " more or less marked, but 

 constant," and premises his conclusions with a minute diagnosis, 

 illustrated by photographs of dissections. 



He then goes on to point out that in size — admittedly not a 

 distinctive character of great value — armoricanus is almost in- 

 variably the smaller insect. But, while the shape of the wings 

 in both species, especially the elongate anal margin of the hind 

 wings, seems at first sight identical, an examination of parallel 



