138 LEPIDOPTERA. 



sends his capture to be named, while he brings it forward as 

 l-alburrif must strike the reader as something excessively 

 droll. Still I do not for a moment doubt the authenticity of 

 the capture in question ; my only surprise is that the insect 

 has not sooner been turned up by our naturalists, after 

 Mr. Stainton had drawn such particular attention to the 

 likelihood of its occurrence here. (V ide *' Annual" for 1857 

 and also " Intelligencer," iv. 129, where a figure of the 

 insect is given.) 



DlANTH^ClA IRREGULARIS, Hufnagel. 



DianthcBcia irregularis^ Hufn. (1767) ; Led. ; Echii, Bork. 

 (1792); Hiib. ; Dup. ; Gn. ii. 18 [Fig. 2 in present 

 '' Annual "]. 



For this handsome addition to our DianthcecicE we are in- 

 debted to the Rev. A. H. Wratislaw (vide Ent. 214, and 

 Ent. Mo. Mag. v. 220). 



Mr. Wratislaw states that he captured a specimen at rest 

 on Echinm vulgare (which he looks upon as its food-plant), 

 early in July, 1868, about ten miles from Bury St. Edmunds 

 (Ent. 214). I think Mr. Wratislaw must be mistaken in 

 supposing Echium to be the food of irregularis^ for, accord- 

 ing to M. Guenee, it feeds on Gypsophila paniculata, which. 

 is not inciio["enous to Britain. It would therefore be far more 

 likely to feed on some other Caryophyllaceous plant— such 

 as one of the catchflies, pinks, campions, corncockle or soap- 

 wort. On the 20th of June last Mr. Wratislaw writes that 

 he secured a second example at Tuddenham on June 28th, 

 1869 (Ent. 304). 



M. Guenee states that he has met with the insect com- 

 monly on the coast of Croisic and Poulinquen in August on 

 the flowers of its food-plant Gi/2)sophila. It has occurred 



