—i 9 7— 



calamity, "in the assertion that this creature, for its size, is one of the 

 most voracious kind, for it has devoured 36 kilograms of rails in a fort- 

 night!" ! ! ! 



It occurs to us however, that this must be a close ally of the "Can- 

 non worm," a still more detestable animal, which, once upon a time at- 

 tacked the guns of a Russian fort so viciously that they one and all burst 

 •when the attempt was made to fire them. j. B. S. 



On Bolina fascicularis, (Hiibn. ) Guenee, 

 By H. B. jMoschler, 



Kronforstchen, near Bautzen. 



It does not seem to be generally known that Guenee in describing 

 ihis species in his "Noctuelites" III, p. 63, No. 1398, has made a very 

 considerable mistake. The Author cites under this species, fig. 443, 444, 

 of Hiibner's "Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge," but 

 these figures show the two sides of Melipoiis {JEdia, Hb., Bolina, Guen.) 

 fasciolaris, Hb. To increase the confusion, Guenee also describes this 

 latter species, (1. c. , p. 69, No. 14 12), and cites the same figures of'Hiib- 

 ner's book ! It is of course evident that there must be a mistake, as it is 

 impossible that the same figures could show two species as different as 

 fasriolaris and fascicidaris must be, if Guenee's descriptions are correct. 

 The reader will no doubt now be not a little surprised when I tell him 

 that Hiibner never published a species of Bolina named fascicularis but 

 only fasciolaris to which belong the figures of his "Zutrage." The spe- 

 cks described by Guenee as fascicularis does not exist at all, but Guenee 

 his mixed up two species in his description, viz: fasciolaris, Hb., and 

 the North American species well known as Melipoiis ochreipennis, Har- 

 vey. He describes the fore wings of the latter, and the hind wings of the 

 former species ; besides he attributes to it the hairy brush of the middle 

 \ hit h shows the male of fasciolaris . He also does not state exactly 

 the fatherland of both species, as he says fascicularis occurs in the "An- - 

 tilhs," fasciolaris in "Brazil and Honduras." 



It is very difficult to believe so famous an author as Guenee could 

 make so great a mistake, but there is no doubt he has made it ; and 

 those who compare Guenee's descriptions of these two species, must, I 

 am sure, agree with me. 



It seems that American as well as European Authors, even t,hosi 

 most prominent, consider that the species occuring in the United States, 

 ami published by Harvey as ochreipennis is fascicularis, Guen., as I have 



