222 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



paper, ia quite right in supposing Lotus corniculatiis a food- 

 plant. But it is by no means confined to it in its Continental 

 haunts. Boisduval adds Tr'tfolium and Hippocrepis ; Donzel, 

 Onohrychis sativa and Astralagus glycyphijllos ; MM. Gelin and 

 Lucas, Coronilla. 



As there appears to be some doubt as to the authority upon 

 which A. achillece was estabHshed as a British insect, I may be 

 permitted to refer to two very interesting notes on the subject 

 pubhshed in the * Entomologists' Record ' (vol. xx, pp. 73-4, 

 1908). The first is by Dr. E. A. Cockayne, who in the 

 preceding year hid received from Mr. Benton as Scottish 

 A. piirparalis an Anthrocerid which, in his own words, " did 

 not appear to be that species."' A comparison with the series 

 of achillece in the Natural History Museum led him to the 

 ultimate conclusion that the doubtful Anthrocerid bore a strong 

 resemblance to the ab. ricice of Hiibner, differing from the type 

 in the smaller size of the spots, especially the sixth, the 

 thinner, rougher scaling of the wings, and the greater hairiness 

 of the abdomen. His diagnosis was confirmed by the several 

 experts to whom the examples were submitted as to the character 

 of the markings and details of structure. Mr. Tutt's following 

 note sums up the then described aberrations and varieties with 

 some remarks on the distribution of the species as a whole. His 

 conclusions, however, suggest that the species came to us from 

 what is now western France and spread northwards, though, on 

 M. Oberthiir's authority, he was misinformed if he meant to 

 include achillece. in the Breton fauna. 



Mr. Benton obviously had no idea of the actual identity of his 

 captures, and Mr. Sheldon does not appear to have confirmed 

 his suspicions — at all events in print— until ten years after his 

 encounter with the doubtful x\nthrocerid reported by him as 

 taken in July, 1898 {op. cit., p. 185 j. That an aftinity with 

 A. piirpuralis, a British insect, should have suggested itself is 

 not unnatural in view of our then knowledge of the group, and 

 in this connection it may not be out of jDlace again to recall a 

 note {op. cit., p. 93) by Mr. Harold Powell, of Hyeres, on the 

 interpairing of acliillece and purpuralis in nature in the south 

 of France. 



As I think there is no complete published list of the forms of 

 A. achillece, I venture to enumerate some of the more recently 

 reported and named. 



A re-grouping of the Anthrocerids — which the author persists 

 in calling Zygaenids, despite Kirby's (and Tutt's) claim that 

 Zygjena F. should be referred to the Arctiid group, which in- 

 cludes phegea — was attempted by Clemens Dziurzynski, and 

 published in 1909.* He divides up the several species in three 



* '• Die jialaaarktischen Arten der Gattung Zygrena F.," ' Ent. Zeit.,' Bd. liii 

 (1908), Berlin. Translated in ' Proc. South London Nat. Hist. Soc.,' 1914-15. 



