296 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
Phycis fusca, very sparingly amongst ling and birch. Seems local and 
uncommon in this district. I did not meet with betule at all this season. 
P. adornatella, swarming as usual on one part of Boxhill at the end of 
June. 
Rhodophea consociella, larvee very common on oaks in the forest, &c. 
R. advenella, from six larve found in June I bred six fine imagos. 
Loughton, &c. From some hawthorn berries gathered at the end of 
September, besides the larve of S. ianthiana already recorded, Laverna 
atra larve came out in their usual abundance, and also three very small 
larve of what must be R. advenella ; their markings and colour are just 
the same as the more mature ones I got in the early summer, but rather 
paler. It would be interesting to know that this larva in its early stages 
feeds in the fruit of the hawthorn. AR. suavella, bred eighteen fine 
specimens from larve found feeding on hawthorn in the forest in June 
last. I did not meet with either twmidella or marmorea this year. 
IS HEINEMANN’S DICRORAMPHA SEPARABLE FROM 
D. CONSORTANA ? 
By Ricuarp Sout, F.E.S. 
Mr. W. Macury, in recording (Kntom. 232) the capture of 
a Dicrorampha, states that they had been identified by Mr. C. G. 
Barrett as true distinctana, Hein. 
In his correction of a supposed error in the determination of 
my Dicrorampha sent him in 1882 (EH. M. M. xxii. 162), I note 
that Mr. Barrett does not make any reference to the above. I 
have not seen Mr. Machin’s insect, but I understand that it is not 
at all like my specimen, and could not possibly be confounded 
therewith. If this is a fact, then Mr. Machin’s insect cannot 
agree with Mr. Barrett's description of distinctana (KH. M. M. 
xviii). My insect, on the other hand, is so accurately pourtrayed, 
that one might very well believe that it was the actual specimen 
from which the description referred to was taken. Now that 
Mr. Barrett has had this specimen a second time under 
examination, and finds that it wants certain marks which he has 
discovered in his types of Heinemann’s insect (which he says 
should serve, if constant, to distinguish distinctana from my 
insect, i. e., consortana), the logical conclusion would appear to be 
that the English and not the German insect was the one 
