70 
Suasa and gentste, Cucullia asteris, Heliothis marginata and Plusia 
V. aureum. On the other hand, some species seemed to be entirely 
absent that were usually reputed common, as Afamea gemina, Noctua 
augur and C. nigrum, while the following were scarce—Agrotis nigri- 
cans, Anchocelis lunosa and litura, and curiously enough Jeniocampa 
zustabilis and Apamea basilinea. 
Of the Deltoidz, there were eight species, the best of which were 
Hypenodes albistrigalis and Herminia derivalis, which used to be con- 
sidered a rarity when he first took it. The Pyvalzédes were badly repre- 
sented by 30 species, but among them was one rarity, Agrotera 
nemoralis, while Odontia dentalis and Stenia punctalis occurred on 
the coast. To these might be added Zunychia octomaculalis, Botys 
lancealis, Pionea stramentalis. 
He had neglected the Emdorea, or might have a better account to 
give. Of the Cramdites, he had met with 25 species: of these 12 
belonged to the genus Cyvamdbus and 12 to Phycide, the remaining 
species, Chtlo Phragmitellus to the Chilide. Those most worth notice 
were Crambus selasellus, Anerastia lotella, Cryptoblabes bistrigella, 
Phycis betulella, Meliphora alveariella—two specimens of the latter 
were taken flying in Guestling wood. The remaining species of the 
Phycide were all interesting, but it would make the list too long to 
insert them. Of insects which might be expected to occur, being 
generally common, but which seemed entirely absent, the following 
seemed worthy of notice. Avrgyunis Paphia, Sesia tipwliformis, 
Lithosia rubricollis, Acidalia incanaria, Noctua augur and C. nigrum, 
Apamea gemina, Cosmia affinis, Hydrocampa stagnalis, Ebulea sam- 
ducata, and Scopula luteatis. While the following insects were either 
very rare or extremely local: Mola cucullatella, Liparis aurifiua, 
Ennomos angiularia, Himera pennaria, Strenia clathrata, Aunticlea 
badiata, Hydraccia micacea, Agrotis nigricans, Miana fasciuncula, 
Noctua umbrosa, Teniocampa instabilis, Anchocelis lunosa and litura, 
Hadena oleracea, Mania typica, Hypena proboscidalis, Cataclysta 
lemnalis, Ennychia octomaculalis, Botys lancealis. Both these lists 
might be considerably extended. 
Those who remembered Mr. Barrett’s “ Lepidopterous Fauna of 
Haslemere” (in Ent. Month. Mag., vol. v., p. 211), would know how 
very much the Fauna of Haslemere and Guestling corresponded ; and 
he could adopt from the latter, in its entirety, Mr. Barnett’s concluding 
remarks: —‘ This scarcity or absence of usually common species is, how- 
ever, less remarkable, when we take into account the fact, that though 
so many species are found, the great majority of them are individually 
scarce, so that insects are really far less abundant than in many other 
