NOTES, CAPTUEES, ETC. 399 



spare to send me some. This, some three months later, he did in 

 October, 1879, sending me thirty-six eggs, saying, "Enclosed you 

 will find a few eggs of angularia ; '' and as such I entered them in 

 my note-book. These eggs hatched during April and May of the 

 present year, and, as previously reported, to my great pleasure 

 and surprise they proved to be E. autumnaria. I had no 

 suspicion that they were other than they had been represented, 

 and left them in charge of my son whilst I was away at Deal. 

 Had I thought them so valuable a thing as they ultimately 

 proved, I should most certainly have had them under my own 

 care, as larva-feeding is distasteful to my son, and he takes no 

 interest in them. When I left home on June 27th, looking at 

 them as angularia, I thought the largest of them were full-fed. 

 I was much surprised at my son's report for next fortnight that 

 none had yet pupated, but that they were still feeding and 

 growing. I must say this roused my suspicion that they must be 

 some other species, and I mentioned to Mr. Harbour that I 

 could not understand them. The mystery was cleared up on my 

 reaching home on July 26th, when I found the first male out. 

 Some of the larvEe were then feeding, and continued to do 

 so until August 12th. My first work was to write Mr. Harbour, 

 telling him of the mistake he had made in the species. Naturally 

 he is vexed with himself thus to have passed over this rarity, still 

 he is now fully alive to the nature of a species he has for years 

 passed over as the common angularia. I have had the pleasure 

 of sending him a fine batch of fertile eggs, with which, and his 

 more recent captures, he should be able to supply every cabinet 

 in England with, I believe, genuine British Ennomos autumnaria. 

 It is clear Mr. Harbour has for some years past been taking 

 E. autumnaria sparingly at Deal, under the impression that they 

 were only E. angularia, although it is curious that he could 

 possibly have passed over so striking a species, even after having 

 bred it from the eggs of a female taken at a gas-lamp in the 

 autumn of 1879. For myself I may state that I neither saw the 

 parent moth nor their offspring, until I bred them this year. That 

 I did not recognise the larva when I saw it feeding at Mr. 

 Harbour's is easily understood. I have never seen it before, and 

 certainly it did not agree with the only description I knew, viz, 

 Newman's. Mr. Harbour's captures, dating back so long, cannot 

 be afiected by M. Wailly's eggs.— W. H. Tugwell ; Greenwich. 



