NOTES UPON THE BRITISH PTEROPHORI. 103 



that this particiilai" insect of Haworth's is distinct from that to 

 which De Villers gave the name of heterodactyla, there is, however, 

 nothing in the rectification which can in any way affect Dr. Mason's 

 conchision as to the identity of teucrii and heterodactylus. 



Stepliens evidently considered the heterodactyla of De Villers 

 identical with Haworth's insect of the same name, for in his Syst. 

 Cat. Brit. Ins, ii. p. 2-'3l, No. 7028, we find it entered thus: — 



25 ; heterodactylus (Sam. i. 35). Pli. Al. heterodactyla, Villers, 

 E. ii. 535. Al. heterodactyla ; the spotted black Plume (Haw. Pr. 

 39), Haw. 479. In Steph. Brit. Entom. Haust. iv. p. 377 (1834), 

 however, Haworth's name is omitted, and the reference is only to 

 De Villers and Steph. Cat. 



Platyptilia zetterstedti. 



By the courtesy of Lord Walsingham I have lately had the 

 privilege of examining Zeller's type of P. zetterstedti. I cannot 

 see that the specimen differs in any way from some examples of 

 undoubted gonodactyla, and it certainly is not identical with the 

 insect we know as zetterstedti. 



In the March number of the * Young Naturalist,' Mr. Briggs 

 has been good enough to criticise my remarks on this species 

 {ante, p. 29), and among other things he says that my now defunct 

 tcBuiadactylus narrowly escaped from being called identical with 

 farfarella. We are not told how he arrived at this conclusion, 

 but it is quite clear that no ordinary process of putting two and 

 two together would lead to such an egregious mistake. If I am 

 correct in considering Zeller's zetterstedti and farfarella to be 

 forms of gonodactyla, my tceniadactyla is not implicated in the 

 ' bouleversement ;' as it is not a variety of Zeller's zetterstedti, 

 but of neinoralis, Zell., of which species I believe our pseudo 

 zetterstedti to be a form. I am sure this was already the view 

 taken by the majority of those who may have read my previous 

 remarks on this species. I must, therefore, apologise to them for 

 explaining that which, of course, they will think required no 

 explanation. 



Oxyptiliis Uetiis, Zell. 



It will, perhaps, be remembered that I recorded the capture 

 of 0. Icetas, Zell., in N. Devon (Entom. xv. p. 35), and also that 

 Mr. Barrett refers to the capture of undoubted examples of the 

 insect at Folkestone (Ent. Mo. Mag. xviii. p. 178) ; but Mr. 

 Briggs says in the ' Young Naturalist,' " Of heriacii and Icetas no 

 authentic records of captures in England exist." The author of 

 this statement could not have carefully searched through the 

 entomological journals, or he certainly would not have made any 

 such assertion with regard to Uetus. 

 12, Abbey Gardens, N.AV., March 17th, 1889. 



