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



Among his synonymes Zeller gives ^;0A<ice//c/, Stephens (he 

 should have said Haworth), the character of which appears to be 

 the base of the anterior wings being of a silvery brown. This de- 

 scription of colour is so very unsatisfactory, and as Flaworth him- 

 self says, " A variety of the following {^aurelld) or merely an old 

 specimen ;" and as his description, which is the one copied by 

 Mr. Stepliens, was made from only a single specimen, I tliink we 

 may safely sink the name posticella. I am well aware that there is a 

 very general idea that in posticella the silver fascia is placed more 

 posteriorly than in aurella ; the name certainly would seem to 

 imply something of this kind, but Haworth makes no comparison 

 whatever between the two species — his description of aurella 

 being merely a copy of the Fabrician description. Zeller seems 

 also to include with this species an insect which is in many col- 

 lections as pygmceella (though hardly the pygmcsella of Haworth, 

 which appears to have been a small specimen of riificapilella, as 

 he makes not the slightest allusion to a silvery fascia), and which 

 appears to me identical vvith the $ gratiosclla, F. v. R. figured 

 in Duponchel (Supp. pi. 77, fig. 4), and which I cannot but think 

 a distinct species ; it is little more than half the size of ordinary 

 specimens of aurella, and frequents hawthorn bushes in May, 

 flying in the sunshine about the twigs like gnats. 



In this insect the anterior wings are of a paler golden at the 

 base than in aurella, the fascia is nearer the apex and much 

 straighter, and the head is black apparently in both sexes. The 

 specimens which I have in my collection as aurella have all red- 

 dish heads, yet one of them appears to be a male ; but 1 believe I 

 have seen specimens apparently of the same insect with black 

 heads. 



Note. — Since writing the above I have examined Haworth's 

 original specimens of the Microsetice, in the collection of the 

 Entomological Society, and find that my conjecture as to pyg- 

 mceella and violaceella being identical with ruficapitella is con- 

 firmed. His posticella appears distinct from aurella, and the 

 fascia is placed more posteriorly and is straighter, but neither of 

 these characters are mentioned in his description, so that I am 

 still of opinion the name should sink." 



" Sp. 4. Lemniscella, Z." Linn. Ent. vol. 3, p. 313. 



" Alis anterioribus nitide brunneis, apice violaceo, fascia postica 

 argyrea ; capillis {$ et $ ?) fernigineis, conchula antennarum 

 albida. 



" After having removed, in my collection, as females of the 



