( =>) 
Mr. J. W. Tutt exhibited specimens of a very small form 
of Huchlcé, and read the following notes: 
‘* As the Fellows of this Society well know, the Rey. F. B. 
‘“‘Newnham, of Church Stretton, Salop, has sought during 
‘‘the year in the pages of ‘The Entomologist’s Record, etc.,’ 
‘‘to establish two species of /Huchloé, distinguishing from 
“ EF, cardamines, » form ‘much smaller than FZ. cardamines, 
‘«¢ measuring, on an average, only about an inch and a quarter 
‘‘<from tip to tip of the forewings; the discoidal spot being 
‘“‘¢ placed, as in LH. turritis and EH. gruneri, at the juncture of 
“« «the orange and white spaces, not, as in ’. cardamines, well 
‘¢¢ within the orange tip. When viewed under the microscope, 
‘“¢ the wing-scales appear very different from those of FH. 
‘*“¢cardamines. He then proposed for this supposed new 
‘species the name of L’. hesperidis. Mr. Newnham sent me 
‘Can example of #. hesperidis and asked me whether I would 
«exhibit it at one of the Societies’ meetings where there 
‘‘¢are some Entomologists acquainted with Continental 
“‘¢insects.’ I have, therefore, brought the specimen for 
‘‘ exhibition to-night. 
‘‘ With regard to this, I may say that Staudinger describes 
‘an Italian form as ‘ab. (et var. ?) turritis, Och., iv., p. 156, 
‘““¢ab, minor, alis anterioribus puncto, nigro part. albam 
‘‘¢attingente.’ Mr. Newnham, owing, it would appear, to 
‘‘an error made (and corrected ‘ Ent. Ree.,’ v., p. 146) by 
‘Mr, Kirby, considered turritis distinct ; I do not know that 
‘there is any evidence tending to prove that it is anything 
“but a small form of cardamines. 
‘“‘There has been, of course, considerable discussion as to 
‘‘these small specimens of Muchloc, but until the supposed 
‘species is bred and some really good characters obtained 
‘from the earlier stages, it appears totally impossible to 
‘‘accept it as a species on such slender characters as the 
‘‘imago affords. KH. cardamines of normal size varies end- 
‘lessly in the position of the discoidal spot with regard to the 
‘‘ orange blotch (vide, ‘ Ent. Ree.,’ etc., vol. v., pp. 173, 174), 
‘‘where I have given a somewhat long table. The difference 
‘in scaling, if only comparative, is to be expected in small 
‘‘specimens, for it is well-known now that most small 
