102 LEPIDOPTERA. 



This forms a most pleasant sequel to the Notes in last 

 year's Annual, and I trust that my friend Bond will be re- 

 membered by his namesake for generations to come. 



DlANTHCECIA BARRETTII,Dbld.,Ve/-5W6^ D. CONSPEIlSA,S.V. 



Mr. Newman asks (Entom. 349), '' Is not this [Saj'rettii] 

 an Irish variety of Z>. consper.sa afflicted Avith melanism like 

 the Irish JSupithecia venosata ? All the markings are 

 exactly in the same place ; the only difference is in the 

 shade of colour.'' Further on, at p. 367, Mr. Kirby re- 

 marks, *' On comparing our series of the two species, I am 

 unable to perceive more than a vague resemblance of 

 markings between the two insects. The shape and position 

 of the pale markings do not cori'espond, nor are all these 

 represented in both species." I well remember having it 

 seriously pointed out to me that D. ccrsia and D. alhimacula 

 were both varieties of £>. conspcrsa! Compersa musty 

 indeed be a variable species. 



ACIDALIA PINGUEDIXATA^ Zcllcr, VCVSUS A. MANCUMATA, 



mihi. 

 Mr. Newman having been much pressed to give an 

 opinion (Entom. 227) remarks, ^^ Both the Lancashire insects 

 are without question the AcidaUa pinguedinata of Zeller^ 

 mancuniata being females, reterata males ; if therefore any 

 name be used to designate the supposed species, it must be 

 the pingnedinata of Zeller ; but after the fullest investigation 

 I am able to give the subject, I am unable to find any cha- 

 racter of larva, life-history or imago, by which either of the 

 new species can be separated from AcidaUa suhscriceata of 

 Haworth."' I would remind the readers of the Annual that 

 two years ago Mr. Buckler very clearly showed that the 

 larva of 'mancuniata differed very considerably from that of 



