116 Enotomological Notes from Grimsby District, 1906. 
I am certain that many mistakes are made in relation to these 
two species and this is due to the great sexual differences in 
D, pubescens, the female of which is larger and lighter in colour 
than the male, and is mistaken for D. obsoletus, and thus differ- 
ence in colour is not one due to maturity. 
I had often brought them home and tried to get them to pair 
but failed. However on September 30th, last I was fortunate 
enough to find many paired at Humberstone, and then on the 
same day alter a long search I was delighted to find my first 
specimen of D_ obsoletus. 
I find a previous record of D. obsoletus for the County; 
August 26th, 1897, ‘‘ West foreshore,’ Rev. A. Thornley. 
I think the record of D. obsoletus and D. pubescens, (Hull 
Scientific and Field Naturalist’s) being ‘“‘ very common on the mud 
of the Humber foreshore " must be wrong. D. obsoletus, has quite 
a southern distribution. 
3. Hydroporus Halensis, F. | took one specimen 
in running water at Ulceby, August 12th, 1g06. 
WILLIAM WaL.Lace, M.B. 
Grimsby. 
December 25th, 1906. 
Diantheeia irregularis, Halfn.-eehii, Bork. 
in North Lineolnshire. Mr. A. Reynolds, of Owston 
Ferry, has recently presented to the Lincoln Museum a bred 
specimen of this local insect. He states that he took the larva 
about ro years ago on Viper’s Bugloss (Echium vulgare) in the 
neighbourhood of East Ferry. The late Mr. C. G. Barrett in his — 
excellent work on the Lepidoptera of the British Islands remarks 
that it is apparently confined to that portion of Norfolk and 
Suffolk known as the Breck-sands. Bury St. Edmunds, Ludden- 
ham, Thetford, Brandon, Eriswell, Elvedon, and Icklingham. 
G. W. Mason. 
Barton-on-Humber, 
