114 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



S. ulmella, ^ and J 



remarks as to its appearance in a state of nature. He noted 

 " its peculiar light appearance when on the wing, which readily 



distinguishes it from any Scoparia but 

 S. pallida. This may be easily under- 

 stood by laying a specimen on its back. 

 The under side is all alike, of a creamy 

 satiny spotless white." Again: " It sits 



(triangularly, nnd may be known from 

 any other of the genus, when at rest, by 

 the peculiarly distinct light first sj)ace, 

 standing out as a white dot on the tree 

 the insect is resting on " ; hence, I pre- 

 sume, the name conspicualis. The imago 

 appears July and August. Mr. Hodgkin- 

 son's captures were made at Windermere. 

 On a former occasion (E. M. M. vol. 

 vi, p. 41, 1869), Mr. Hodgkinson men- 

 t tions that, fifteen years previous to his 



I note, he took some Scoparise on elm 



trees in Brockholes Wood, near Preston, 

 which agreed with ulmella. They were, 

 however, returned to him as deliinella=^ 

 resinea ; but he was at the time satisfied 

 that they were not that species. He 

 adds that the trees were cut down after 

 he made his captures, so that I suppose 

 he did not meet with it again in that 

 locality. It may be remembered that 

 Mr. Dale's original specimens were taken 

 off the trunk of a wych-elm in a thick 

 wood at East Meon, adjoining Bordean 

 Hanger, in July. 



I do not know that I need refer 

 further to the peculiarities of idmella, 

 except to observe that it is the first line 

 which partakes of the character of that 

 of mercurella ,• while it is the stigmata, and 

 particularly the reniform and claviform, 

 which, with their ochreous arrangements, 

 remind one of dahitalis, and this is more 

 especially observable in some specimens 

 than in others. Unfortunately photo- 

 graphy does not afford an accurate re- 

 cord of ochreous marks, and so we must 

 do without them ; but that does not mat- 

 ter, as we have ample evidence without 

 them to show that ulmella is neither basi- 

 strigalis, nor amhigualis, nor atomalis. In comparing two or more 

 species with one another, the same sex should be selected. 



S. basistrigalis. $ 



avibigualis, 2 



