THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 233 



everyone of which was the victim of an Ichneumon. Neither 

 did I find any larvae of Anticlea sinuata, as usual, on the 

 Galium veium at these places. — [Rev.] A. H. VVratislaiv ; 

 School Hall, Bury St. Edmunds, September 4, 1876. 



CuculUa sc/iropularice. — May I be permitted to ask, 

 through the medium of the 'Entomologist,' whether there is 

 any well-authenticated instance of the recent occurrence of 

 Cucullia schropulariae in this country? I have frequently 

 had "true C. schropulariae" offered to me by correspondents, 

 but they have invariably proved to be Cucullia verbasci. In 

 Newman's ' British Moths' it is said that the perfect insects 

 of the two species are hard to distinguish from each other; 

 but, in xny opinion, nobody who knows both could 

 easily mistake the one for the other. It is, however, 

 extremely difficult to distinguish between Cucullia schropu- 

 lariae and Cucullia lychnitis. The late Mr. Doubleday 

 himself sent me a pair of the ibrmer species, which he had 

 received from a correspondent in France as types; and I 

 confess that had I taken them myself I should have mistaken 

 them for Cucullia lychnitis. I believe some people labour 

 under the delusion that all the larvag found on Schropularia 

 nodosa are true Cucullia schropulariae ; but it is not so, as 

 Cucullia verbasci also feeds on that plant, as well as on Schro- 

 pularia aquatica. I should be very glad if any competent 

 entomologist can give reliable information on the subject, as 

 I have never met with Cucullia schropulariae myself; nor 

 have I, during the time I have been a collector, ever seen 

 any trustworthy record of its occurrence in Britain. — W. H. 

 Harwood; 8, West Stockwell Street, Colchester, Sept. 16, 1876. 



Selidosema plumaria, Sfc, near Alverstoke. — Spending a 

 few days at Alverstoke, on the Solent, last month, I was 

 surprised to find S. plumaria occurring along the coast from 

 that village westward, as far as my rambles extended, — some 

 three or four miles : onl}'^ males of course, and all more or 

 less wasted. This is a new, or at least unrecorded, locality 

 for the species ; I had previously associated it with heaths. 

 At the same place I took a iew Spilodes palealis and 

 Phycis Davisella. To these I may add Pyralis glaucinalis, 

 as 1 see by Mr. Jenner-Fust's list that it had not in 1868 been 

 noted from sub-province 5. Aspilates citraria is, I fancy, 

 supposed to be one of those species of which the males are 



i>il 



