( Iviii ) 



"Nemoptera lusitanica, Leach. — The specific name under 

 which this insect is commonly linown was bestowed by Leach in 

 the ' Zoological Miscellany ' (not " Zool. Hist." as quoted by 

 Hagen), vol. ii. p. 74, pi. 85, in' 1815. But in Germar and 

 Ahren's 'Fauna Insectorum Europge,' fasc. i., fig. 16, 1812, it is 

 figured and described as Panorpa bipeiinis, lUiger, and the 

 specific name was also adopted by Westwood, in his paper in the 

 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1841, p. 10. Hagen says that he is now 

 unable to compare Ahren's Fauna. I can assure him that the 

 species therein figured as P. bipennis is N. lusitanica, and the 

 former specific name should prevail. Hagen had already called 

 attention to it in the Stettiner entom. Zeitung, 1866, p. 451, 

 under ' Neiiuttopiera,' Burm. ; but under ^ Nemoptera,' pp. 453 

 and 453, he then adopted the more recent name lusitanica. 



" The insect is essentially Iberian ; bat in Brauer's Catalogue 

 of 1876 the South of France is given as a locality, and Hagen • 

 alludes to it in his recent paper. I am not sure if there exist any 

 separate record to this effect. But when I passed through Paris 

 in July last, the Abbe David assured me that he had seen a 

 Nemoptera in the hill district north of Marseilles, and it could 

 scarcely have been other than N. bipennis [lusitanica). 



" Nemoptera HuTTii, Westwood. — In addition to the examples 

 recorded for this very rare insect, I may say that a very bad 

 specimen from West Australia is in my collection. 



" Nemoptera imperatrix, Westwood. — The type-specimen of 

 this insect is generally supposed to be unique. It was described 

 by Westwood in our ' Transactions,' ser. 3, v., p. 507, and 

 figured by him in his ' Thesaurus,' pi. 35, fig. 8. I have a speci- 

 men, in miserable condition, given to me many years ago by the 

 late I'homas Chapman, of Glasgow ; it is (like the type) from Old 

 Calabar. Hagen, in his recent paper, places it in a special un- 

 named division or genus, and a generic term will no doubt have 

 eventually to be found for it. 



" Stenot^nia Walkeri, McLach- — Hagen (at p. 257) justly 

 states, in a footnote, that the term Stenotcenia was previously in 

 use. I propose to substitute that of Stenorrhachus." 



Miss E. A. Ormerod communicated a paper " On the occur- 

 rence of the Hessian Fly (Oecidoinyia destructor) in Great 

 Britain." It appeared from this paper that there could be no 

 longer any doubt as to the occurrence of the insect in this 



