52 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



very partial this second appearance must have been is shown 

 by the fact that, although something like a hundred pupse of 

 E. linariata resulted from larvas I took at Hazeleigh, in Sep- 

 tember last, only one of these produced an imago. When this 

 emerged I cannot exactly say, as I only found it to-day. It 

 would, no doubt, be before the middle of November, when the 

 cold weather set in. I think the fact worth recording, as the 

 pupse were left in a room where there has been no fire, and my 

 experience with the species is that even when the pupie are kept 

 in a warm place they never emerge before their natural time of 

 appearance, in June. Some Eupithecife may easily be forced, as, 

 for instance, E. albipunctata, which, when subjected to a warmer 

 temperature than usual, emerges regularly in February and 

 March. With regard to Acidalla virgularia {incanata), I took 

 a single specimen at light, at Brentwood, towards the end of 

 October. Many of the Acidaliae are partially double-brooded 

 when reared in captivity, but I think this is rarel}' the case with 

 them in a state of nature. — (Hev.) Gilbert H, Raynor ; Hazeleigh 

 Rectory, Maldon, December 26, 1884. 



EuPiTHECiA cuRZONi. — lu vol. xvii. of the ' Entomologist ' 

 (p. 330) is a description of this species, which is fully and 

 carefully described throaghout the various stages of its life- 

 history, together with some remirks thereon, one remark being 

 that this is probably the insect figured in the 'Entomologist' 

 (vol. xiv. plate i, figs. 2 and 3, &c.). If, after reading this 

 description and these remarks, and seeing these figures, anyone 

 can " have a strong opinion " that this species " is nothing more 

 or less than a variety of E. nanata" (see Entom xvii. 277), I 

 need only say that it does not follow because he is blind to 

 specific differences that other people cannot see them. As to the 

 writer having sent his specimens of this species " to our most 

 eminent entomologists, who all agreed with him in considering it 

 to be a verv interesting form of E. nanata,'" I have nothing to 

 say, but that if our most eminent entomologists merely agree 

 with him in " his strong opinion," but know nothing of the fact 

 that it is a distinct good species, then I may perhaps be 

 allowed to say that I do not esteem very highly the mere 

 opinions of naturalists, however eminent they may be thought to 

 be, if their opinions do not agree with the natural-history facts 

 known to me. In reply to line 17 (Entom. xvii. 277), I may say 



