502 Day A. Chapman on the 
at any rate, I have not met with any. This is not, of 
course, surprising, considering that w/mel/a is not recorded 
out of England, and basistrigalis is nearly, if not really 
absolutely, in the same case. Our English magazines, on 
the other hand, have quite voluminous papers on the 
subject, to which I suppose I must make some reference, 
though it would be quite out of the question to transcribe 
them in full. 
Knaggs certainly deserves the first place in connection 
with these species, having first described basistrigalis and 
ulmella (in KH. M. M., 111, 1866, pp. 1 and 217). In 1869 he 
gave a résumé of the genus in the E. M. M.,, vol. v, p. 291. 
In this paper he makes nineteen species, of which five have 
since by general consent been sunk as varieties or local races 
of others: these are zellert, ingratella, phaeoleuca, gracilalis, 
and atomalis. ‘woof these, ingratella and phaeoleuca are 
“good” species found on the Continent, but the supposed 
British representatives have been dropped as being varieties 
of other British species. 
Hodgkinson has communications, amongst others 
EK. M.M., vi (1869), p. 41; “Entomologist,” xiv (1881), 
p. 223; EK. M. M., xviii (1882), p. 1384. He describes a new 
species, conspicualis, shown by Mason, K. M. M., xxiii (1877), 
p. 163, to be synonymous with wlmella. 
A paper by Bower, KE. M. M., xxxi (1895), p- 273, firmly 
establishes basisty igalis as a « good” species, as no one 
(Hampson excepted) seems to have disputed its position 
since. 
Bankes, E. M. M., xxvi (1890), p. 7, clearly shows that 
atomalis and ambigualis are but one species, and mentions 
seeing drawings of the genitalia from Dr. Mason, but 
of these I find no other record. There are other com- 
munications by Briggs, Porritt, and Tutt.* In 1900 
Knaggs has in the “ Entomologist ” (xxxiii, p. 109) an able 
paper on this group (ambigualis, etc.). He produces many 
reasons for retaining atomalis as distinct from ambigualis. 
In Staudinger’s list, published just after, basistrigalis is 
admitted, but atomalis and wlmella are sunk under ambhi- 
gualis; possibly the wlmella was disallowed under a doubt 
raised by Dr. Knaggs’s plea for atomalis being unsound, 
* Other references are: Briggs, ‘‘ Entomologist,” vol. xxii (1890), 
p. 17; E.M.M., vol. xxvi (1890), pp. 50, 124; Tutt, E. M. M., xxiv 
(1887), p. 43; E.M. M., xxvi (1890), p. 51; Porritt, E. M. M., xxvi 
(1890), p. 88. 
