NOTES, CAPTURES, ETC. 131 
from my register, were taken by Mr. Sydney Webb, in the Isle of 
Sheppey, in July, 1878, and from whom I received them the 
following month. They also are of the same type as those I 
bred, and not of the Deal and Blackheath form.—Gero. T. 
Porritt; Huddersfield, April 5, 1886. 
NOMENCLATURE OF CRAMBUS CONTAMINELLUs, Hb. — At the 
risk of tiring your readers on the subject of Crambus contami- 
nellus, I should like to offer a few more remarks about it, 
especially as the name I have suggested for the new species has 
been questioned on the law of priority. Of course the priority 
turns on Hubner’s figure, which, as I have remarked (Entom. 74), 
is so bad that it would do for almost anything of the contaminellus, 
inquinatellus, geniculeus, or cantiellus type, if we supposed the 
greater part of the markings of either worn off, and it is not 
reasonable to suppose that Hubner figured a worn specimen. 
But as it stands it bears no resemblance to either the first or the 
last of the species above named; both insects have two well- 
defined angulated lines crossing the wings, those of C. cantiellus 
continuous throughout, and those of C. contaminellus made of short 
streaks ; and in their typical form I do not believe it possible that 
Hubner meant it for either. I have in my series some seven or 
eight dozens of the Deal insect, and out of all this number there 
is not, and neither have I seen, a single specimen with a dot on 
the central nervure instead of the first line, which crosses the 
centre of the wing. It cannot possibly be this species. At any 
rate his figure does not represent a single specimen in the whole 
of my series, which, I believe, is as fine and variable as it is 
possible to get. As I remarked, too, in my last note on the 
subject, there is a form of the true C. contaminellus with the 
central shade obsolete, and the series of dashes which crosses the 
centre of the wing reduced to a minimum, the strongest marked, 
and, in fact, the only clearly-marked streak being found as a 
linear dot on the central nervure; and I pointed out then that I 
believed Zeller took this view. Curiously Mr. Tugwell points 
out that Mr. Stainton had one of Zeller’s of this form, ‘‘ not so 
strongly marked, but more nearly approached the Preston form, 
although it wanted the characteristic dark shade between the 
nervures.” ‘This is exactly what I pointed out with this form of 
Zeller’s: “ without the dark shade,” and “not so strongly marked,” 
gives us an insect which Hiibner probably had before him, and 
