NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 981 
He does not seem to “select a type,’’ but merely bases his assumption 
on a mechanical rule of “first species = type,” which has no force ; 
Grote’s citation of temerata as type (Allg. Zeit. Ent. vii. p. 471, 1902) 
is of course ultra vires, and Meyrick’s usage has seven years’ priority 
over Warren’s and ten over Grote’s. The correct synonomy is :—(1) 
Bapta, Steph. (1831) = Corycia, Dup. (1829, nom. preeoce.) = Lomo- 
grapha, Warr., Grote (nec Hiib., Meyr. restr.), type b¢maculata, Fab. 
(2) Lomographa, Hib. (1826 ?, Meyr. restr.) = Stegania, Guen. = 
Terpnomicta, Led., type trimaculata, Vill. — Louis B. Prout; 246, 
Richmond Road, N.E., October 13th, 1909. 
Tue Foop-Prant or Lyc#NA PHERETES.—I have been reading in 
the ‘Entomologist’ (antea, p. 221) of Dr. Chapman’s interesting dis- 
covery that Soldanella alpina is the food-plant of Lycena orbitulus. 
I feel that I should put on record that on July 15th of last year 
(1908), in the Roseg Thal, Ober-Engadin, I found LZ. pheretes in 
considerable numbers on a very limited area of ground, and always 
associated with Astragalus alpinus, L. (Phaca astragalina, DC.). It 
was a damp dull day, and late in the afternoon, and I did not see the 
females laying on the plant while at large; but several females, which 
I easily boxed, when in captivity afterwards laid very freely on sprays 
of the plant, while only one ovum was placed upon a piece of Lotus 
corniculatus which I offered them in addition. The larve fed freely 
on some Astragalus which I brought home, but I was unwisely 
tempted to try to rear too many for the plants, and when the latter were 
eaten I could find no allied plant, either in my own rock-garden nor 
in several of our English nurseries, that would satisfy them, and one by 
one the larvee disappeared—hybernated, as I hoped. But none showed 
when spring came round, and I think they perished before they were 
ready to go into winter quarters. When I saw them last some of the 
larve were in their third stage; they closely resembled the pale green 
hairy pinnas of the Astragalus foliage. This fact, coupled with their un- 
willingness to take to any of the several other dwarf plants of the family 
which I offered them, justifies me, I think, in assuming that this is the 
food-plant of ZL. pheretes.—W. H. Sr. Quintin ; Scampston, York. 
CUCULLIA UMBRATICA, A FmeRTILIZER OF ORCHIS MACULATA.—At 
Onich, Inverness-shire, in August, I found at rest on a post a speci- 
men of the above moth with one of the pollen masses of the orchid 
named attached to the head just above the eye. The observation is 
of interest, since the chief authority on this subject, Hermann Miller, 
gives no lepidopterous visitors for the orchid in his ‘ Fertilization of 
Flowers’ (1883). C. Darwin records as insect visitors Cerambycide 
and humble-bees, and Empide (George Darwin). Muller says the 
flower is chiefly visited by Diptera. The only orchid in flower at the 
time of the observation was O. maculata, which was quite common in 
the district. A comparison of the pollen mass on the moth with some 
extracted from the flowers proved their identity. My earliest recol- 
lection of C. wmbratica as a flower-frequenting species was during the 
summer of 1868, when I first commenced collecting. The moth was 
seen every evening in abundance over the honeysuckle growing in 
our garden at Leyton, in Essex.—R. Metpoua ; 6, Brunswick Square, 
W.C., October 16th, 1909. 
“NTOM.—NOVEMBER, 1909. 2A 
