NOTES ON CERTAIN SCOPARI^. 



113 



to all who cared to accept it, so that everybody should know it ; 

 as I did with T. hondii in days of yore ; but, as I cannot do this, it 

 will give me much pleasure to express an opinion upon any sup- 

 posed specimens of hasistrigalis which may be forwarded to me 

 for the purpose, although no doubt it is better for the instruction 

 of entomologists that they should each collect, and name their 

 own captures. 



To those who would prefer to make their own comparisons 

 between hasistrigalis and anibigiialis, I would draw attention to 

 the following points : The greater alar expanse, particularly of 

 the females of the former ; the more rhomboidal shape of the 

 fore wings, with their rounded tips and more vertical hind mar- 

 gins ; the richer clothing of scales ; the more ample hind wings, 

 and their whiter, more pearly, and translucent appearance 

 (through which, in a favourable light, you can distinguish the 

 label beneath), as compared with the decidedly fuscous tone of 

 those of amhigualis ; this is very distinctive when a series of 

 each, side by side, is inspected ; the distinct basal streaks ; the 

 oblique commencement of the first line, from costa to orbicular 

 stigma, which if continued would about bisect the anal angle, as 

 compared with the less oblique commencement of the same in 

 amhigualis, which if produced would arrive about the dorsal end 

 of the second line ; then the greater angulation of the first line, 

 especially the middle angulation, which almost invariably meets 

 the dash-like claviform stigma, is deeper and more acute than in 

 amhigualis ; the renal stigma more clouded with ochreous brown, 

 the inner lower cornu of the x mark generally projecting base- 

 wards — not so in amhigualis : the more distinct denticulation of 

 the second line, which is less inclined to conform to the lines 

 which enclose an angle than in amhigualis ; the neatly intersected 

 cilia, and other little matters which I shall attempt to explain 

 by and by, which should enable anyone "in the know "" to 

 separate these species at a glance. 



As for ulmella, Knaggs (Dale MS.) ^^ conspicualis, Hodgkinaon, 

 I do not think that anyone but Mr. Meyrick has been bold 

 enough to assert that it is identical with hasistrignlis and the 

 others. It has always appeared to me that the sleek natty little 

 ulmella was not very closely allied to any of our Scopariae, but 

 that on the whole it came nearest to duhitalis ; and in my original 

 description (E.M. M. vol. iii. p. '217, 1867) I placed it between 

 that species and mercurella (and fine specimens certainly bear a 

 remarkable though superficial resemblance to the " plia'oleuca" 

 var. of the latter), while my old correspondent the late Mr. 

 Hodgkiuson, who described it quite separately from me, and 

 many years afterwards (Entom. vol. xiv. p. 223, 1881) under the 

 name conspicualis, also remarked its affinity to ingratella (now 

 considered to be a variety of duhitalis), and placed it between.that 

 species and atomalis. Mr. Hodgkinson made some interesting 



