128 Mr. H. T. Stainton's Remarks on Extracts 



" Sp. 9. Cristalella, F. v. R." Linn. Ent. vol. 3, p. 300. 



" Its concolorous dirty-grey, smooth anterior wings distinguish 

 our cristalella in this genus ; the structure of the antennae dis- 

 tinguishes it from the much darker Tisdieria gaunacella; its much 

 smaller eye-caps, its smooth face and its narrower anterior wings, 

 separate it from Trifurcula ivvmundella." 



" It flies in May, on sandy places overgrown with weeds ; 

 scarce, near Glogau, and easily overlooked, from its keeping so 

 near the ground. On the 7th of May, 18 il, towards evening, I 

 fell in with a small company, which were swarming at one .spot 

 in the short grass. On one blade of grass sat a pair in copuld, 

 around which the remainder were flying. Whilst I had hardly 

 pinned a pair of them, the whole company were as if blown away, 

 and, notwithstanding a diligent search, I found no more." 



I now come to Zeller's genus Neplkula, which includes nearly 

 all our small Mkrosetice (that genus being very readily divisible 

 into three sections, of which quadrella, aurella and Pfeifferella 

 may be considered the types — the aurella section forming the 

 genera Nepticula and Trifurcula of Zeller). 



These insects, from their extreme smallness and the consequent 

 difficulty of pinning and setting them, have hitherto been very 

 much neglected in this country ; indeed, till last year, very many 

 of our collections had only one or two species. Our knowledge 

 of them is therefore very limited, and this paper of Zeller's will be 

 most useful in assisting us rightly to separate species and unite 

 the sexes. Zeller has thirteen species of Nepticula. 



" Sp. 1. Samiatella, Z." Linn. Ent. vol. 3, p. 303, 



" Alis anterioribus flavo-virenti-aeneis, apice violascentibus ; 

 antennarum conchula flavida, capillis maris nigris, feminae 

 ferrugineis. 



*' Known by the concolorous, clear-green bronzy anterior wings, 

 which are violet posteriorly." Zeller gives as synonymes " $ Mi- 

 crosetia atricapitella, Haw. — ? Microsetia rujicapitella, Haw." 



Now to this I cannot agree. Atricapitella and rujicapitella, I 

 firmly believe, are distinct species j if I am not mistaken I have 

 taken more than one pair o^ atricapitella in copula on a low fence 

 near Beckenham ; moreover I appear to have both sexes of both 

 species ; besides, rujicapitella is much the conmioner, atricapitella 

 being a rare or probably local species, whereas were it the male 

 of rujicapitella it should be commoner, or at least equally com- 



