76 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
your other specimens are males, and have the apex produced 
like this, they will be distinct from contaminellus; but, if they 
are rounded, you will find the name I give them correct. Please 
examine and let me know the result, for this creature is of 
a very curious form.” At that time I had only females, nothing 
more could then be done; and, although I afterwards, in 1878, 
1879, and 1880, secured odd specimens of both sexes, I failed to 
reopen the subject. The six specimens in my cabinet, ranged 
after the Lancashire (Preston) Crambus contaminellus, always 
impressed me as differing greatly from that insect; and when 
Mr. Tutt zealously worked up a fine series at Deal, one could 
hardly fail to see that they must be distinct. For all that I 
fear my friend has been a little premature in elevating the Deal 
insect in his new species, cantiellus, much as I should like to see 
my county, Kent, honoured by the name on our list. 
At the February meeting of the South London Entomological 
Society I exhibited the Deal and Preston insects ; when, directly 
Mr. W. West, of Greenwich, saw the Preston C. contaminellus, he 
at once said that they were totally different to his Blackheath 
Crambus contaminellus, and promised to send them to me for 
comparison, which he did, viz., two males and two females, taken 
by himself on Blackheath some ten years since. I fear the 
insect is lost there now, for it appears no longer to occur. It 
was at once clear that the Blackheath insect was identical with 
the Deal species. This was a great surprise to me. I therefore 
visited Mr. Stainton, who is ever ready and desirous of helping 
entomologists; so that I did not hesitate to seek his aid. That 
appeared to me the best means of finding out the source of 
his information for writing the ‘Manual’ description, and to 
gather from his rich collection and lbrary what was really 
known of the species on the Continent. I found, as expected, 
that Mr. Stainton had written his description of Crambus 
contaminellus from Blackheath specimens, of which he had two 
males, in his collection. Apparently, like Mr. C. G. Barrett, he 
had not any female examples: hence the reason why the peculiar 
form of that sex was not described in the ‘ Manual’ or known to 
Mr. Barrett. 
On seeking for the continental knowledge of the species, 
Hibner’s plates, published 1801, were first inspected ; here we 
tound that he had the Deal form, characteristically shown, 
