NOTES, CAPTURES, ETC. 44 
Sept. Ist (3), 4th (1), 5th (1), 8th (1), 14th (4), 15th (1). On Sept. 1st T 
took Agrotis suffusa, and again on Oct. 19th and Nov. 7th. Half-a-dozen 
larve of Thyatira batis and three T. derasa were obtained from bramble ; 
one of the latter I found resting in a slight web at the base of the three 
leaflets of a bramble-leaf; the rest were beaten. The following insects 
occurred at ivy :—Agrotis suffusa (2), Noctua c-nigrum (1), Orthosia lota (a 
few), O. macilenta (abundant), Anchocelis rufina (4), A. pistacina (common), 
A. lunosa (2), Cerastis vaccinii and C. spadicea (very common), Scopelosoma 
satellitia and Oporina croceayo (a few of each), Xanthia ferruginea (fairly 
common), Hpunda nigra (1 female), Miselia oxyacanthe (not uncommon), 
P. meticulosa (abundant), Xylina rhizolitha (a few), X. petrificata (not 
uncommon), Plusia chrysitis (1), P. gamma (one or two). I took my first 
insects at ivv on Sept. 29th, my last about Nov. 21st. At gas-lamps I took 
one Dasypolia templi on Nov. 4th: two Pecilocampa populi on Dee. 5th: 
four Himera pennaria on Nov. 16th. 17th and 30th; and one Hybernia 
defoliaria on Nov. 30th.—F. J. Brieas; Fursdon, Egg Buckland, 
December 28. 
British OrtHorrtera.—As I contemplate writing a popular handbook 
on the above, as a companion volume to my ‘ Illustrated Handbook of 
British Dragonflies,’ I shall he very pleased to receive any information 
from those who are interested in them. Local lists and specimens for 
figuring would be very acceptable. — W. Harcourt Bata ; Ladywood, 
Birmingham. 
EUPITHECIA PYGMH#ATA.—Can any of your numerous readers give me 
any information as to the larva of this species, its food-plants (if more 
than one), the best time and best method of working for it, &c.?—A. E. 
Hatt; Norbury, Sheffield, Dec., 1891. 
Tae New Forest Brix, 1892.—In connection with the petitions in 
favour of this Bill, to which the signatures of persons interested in the 
New Forest are being obtained, I am frequently asked, ‘What is the 
necessitv for the Bill, and what is its object?” The facts of the case may 
be shortly stated as follows;—The “Woods and Wastes ” of the Forest 
comprise about 63,000 acres of land, the whole of which were, prior to 
1698, open and unenclosed ; but under the authority of the Acts 9 & 10 
William III. c. 36 (1698), and 48 George IIT. c. 72 (1808), the Crown was 
empowered to enclose, and keep enclosed, freed and discharged from all 
rights of Common, such quantity of land in the Forest as would amount 
to 6000 acres, for the growth of timber. By the Act of 14 & 15 Vict. ec. 
76 (the Deer Removal Act of 1851) the Crown was authorized to enclose 
and plant with trees any quantity of land, not exceeding 10,000 acres, in 
addition to the 6000 acres already in enclosure under the authority of the 
Acts before mentioned. The powers conferred by these Acts are not 
repealed by 40 & 41 Vict. c. 121 (the ‘“ New Forest Act, 1877”): but the 
rights of enclosure are bv Sec. 5 of the last cited Act limited to “ Such 
lands as are at the date of the passing of this Act enclosed, or as have, pre- 
viously to such date, been enclosed by virtue of commissions issued in pur- 
suance of the said Acts or some of them.” The New Forest Act of 1877 
practically secured the New Forest to the public; but the Act is virtually 
repealed by the 10th Section of the Ranges Act, 1891 (and other Acts 
therein referred to), under the authority of which the War Department, 
with the consent of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, can take 
