THE LITA GROUP OF GF,I,ECHIID/T:. 293 



typical form, but the specimens of this species vary in intensity 

 both of coh)ur and markings. About No. 4 I will say but little. 

 The markings are so very indistinct that, after all the inspection 

 I have given them, I ain undecided. Mr. C. G. Barrett thinks 

 the specimens are " dark vars. of ma?-inorea." Probably he is 

 correct. 



The following summary may be of some use. It shows what 

 are to me the salient points of these closely allied species. I 

 class the species in pairs, which, in themselves, show but little 

 difference except in size and different character of their 

 respective localities : — 



1. L. maculea. — Large, white, wood species. 

 L. blandulella. — Small, white, coast species. 



(In both oblique black line whole). 



2. L. hiibnerella. — Large, white, grey-marbled species. 



L. knaggsiella. — Small, white, grey-marbled, wood species. 

 (In both oblique black line broken). 



3. L. maculiferella. — Inland, hedge species ; food unknown. 

 L. semidecandriella. — Coast species ; food Cerastium 



semidecandriuni. 



(Both dark species; oblique line whole). 



This is only, of course, meant to be a very rough guide, but 

 sometimes hints of this kind put one on the right track. 



There is another species about which there is some un- 

 certainty, I mean Lita junctella. This seems essentially a wood 

 species. The original specimens came from Epping and Hainault 

 Forests [vide Sta. Manual, vol. ii. p. 339). Messrs. Hodgkinson 

 and Threlfall get specimens, referred to the species, on the coast 

 of Lancashire. Their species hybernates ; the only one of the 

 group as yet known to do so. I asked both these gentlemen for 

 the loan of specimens, but they get scarcely any ; and although 

 Mr. Hodgkinson could not let me have one, Mr. Threlfall kindly 

 sent me a fine specimen, which I compared with Mr. Stainton's 

 long series of British and Continental specimens. Mr. Stainton 

 was as decided as myself that this specimen was not junctella. 

 The original error must have arisen from the statement that a 

 single specimen submitted to Mr. Stainton " might he junctella. "" 

 I have specimens now, I believe, from Deal, quite indentical with 

 Mr. Threlfall's coast species (hitherto called junctella) ; so that 



