( xxviii ) 



The specimens before yoii — owing probably to the absence of 

 rushes (Jwicus) in the vessel, although Anavharu, which one 

 would have thought suitable, was in abundance — are entirely 

 external, affixed basally to the stalk by a glutinous substance 

 as in the allied Coiixidtr. That this basal-fixation is not 

 usual is evident from the fact that the ova are but feebly 

 adherent, dropping off upon a slight disturbance, whereas the 

 ova of the Coririda' are attached exceedingly firmly." 



Mr. Tutt exhibited living larvae of Apamea ophio.jramma 

 together with the grass on which it was feeding. He said 

 the species was formerly considered rare in Britain, but was 

 now found freely in any localities where Kibbon grass 

 (Dil/raphh armuUnarea) was plentiful. He enquired if the 

 grass on which the larvre were feeding was identical with the 

 last named species. Professor Meldola said that perhaps 

 Professor Marshall Ward (who was present) would look at 

 the plant. Mr. Goss observed that the moth was common 

 on the banks and on the islands of the Thames, between 

 Kingston and Twickenham, and probably everywhere in the 

 neighbourhood where Ribbon grass was abundant. Mr. 

 McLachlan said the species was common about the Wandle 

 some twenty-five years ago, and the President stated that he 

 had taken it at Twickenham and Woodford, two widely 

 divergent localities. 



The Secretary read the following note from Mr. 

 Meyrick : — 



" In the report of the meeting held on Feb. 19th (Pro- 

 ceedings of the Society, 1896, pp. x-xv), is a short paper by 

 Prof. A. Radcliffe-Grote, criticising my use of some generic 

 terms in the group of Lepidopterd which he calls the Geome- 

 tridtr. I was not present to hear this read, or I would have 

 pointed out at the time that his criticisms all fall to the 

 ground, because he has failed to recognize that I intentionally 

 reject all the generic names of Hiibner's ' Tentamen,' which 

 he seems to suppose I have overlooked. I reject them because 

 they are unaccompanied by any diagnosis, and in this I am 

 supported by the great majority of zoologists. 1 think there 

 are other good reasons for their rejection, but am content to 

 rely on this, and shall continue to do so until a majority of 



