THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 233 
everyone of which was the victim of an Ichneumon. Neither 
did I find any larve of Anticlea sinuata, as usual, on the 
Galium verum at these places—[ev.) 4. H. Wratislaw ; 
School Hall, Bury St. Edmunds, September 4, 1876. 
Cucullia schropularie.—May I be permitted to ask, 
through the medium of the ‘ Entomologist,’ whether there is 
any well-authenticated instance of the recent occurrence of 
Cucullia schropularie in this country? I have frequently 
had “ true C. schropulariz” offered to me by correspondents, 
but they have invariably proved to be Cucullia verbasci. In 
Newman’s ‘ British Moths’ it is said that the perfect insects 
of the two species are hard to distinguish from each other; 
but, in my opinion, nobody who knows both could 
easily mistake the one for the other. It is, however, 
extremely difficult to distinguish between Cucullia schropu- 
larie and Cucullia lychnitis. The late Mr. Doubleday 
himself sent me a pair of the former species, which he had 
received from a correspondent in France as types; and I 
confess that had I taken them myself I should have mistaken 
them for Cucullia lychnitis. I believe some people labour 
under the delusion that all the larve found on Schropularia 
nodosa are true Cucullia schropularie ; but it is not so, as 
Cucullia verbasci also feeds on that plant, as well as on Schro- 
pularia aquatica. I should be very glad if any competent 
entomologist can give reliable information on the subject, as 
I have never met with Cucullia schropularie myself; nor 
have J, during the time I have been a collector, ever seen 
any trustworthy record of its occurrence in Britain.—W. H. 
Harwood ; 8, West Stockwell Street, Colchester, Sept. 16,1876. 
Selidosema plumaria, §c., near Alverstoke.—Spending a 
few days at Alverstoke, on the Solent, last month, I was 
surprised to find S. plumaria occurring along the coast from 
that village westward, as far as my rambles extended,—some 
three or four miles: only males of course, and all more or 
less wasted. This is a new, or at least unrecorded, locality 
for the species; I had previously associated it with heaths. 
At the same place I took a few Spilodes palealis and 
Phycis Davisella. To these I may add Pyralis glaucinalis, 
as I see by Mr. Jenner-Fust’s list that it had not in 1868 been 
noted from sub-province 5. Aspilates citraria is, I fancy, 
supposed to be one of those species of which the males are 
2H 
