100 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



{ohsolctana in error) represents sinuana, Stepb., whilst Wilkin- 

 son's figure of sinuana (Brit. Tort. pi. ii. fig. 6) is really that of 

 incanana, Steph. 



Catoptria rufana, Steph., and C. expallidana, Haw. 



In the Stephens collection were five specimens of a Catoptria 

 over the name expallidana, and in the same series a specimen 

 with the name rufana pinned under it. The latter, except in 

 the matter of colour, does not agree exactly with Stephens's 

 description of '^Carpocapsa" rufana (111. iv. 124), as there are no 

 traces of the "very obscure somewhat ocellated silvery spot, with 

 two fulvescent lines in the middle." Wood's fig. 989 certainly 

 represents this particular specimen. Of the other specimens 

 referred to, two only are Stephensian, and neither of these can 

 be made to accord with Stephens's description (identical with 

 Haworth's) of Bactra expallidana, Haw,, but they fit in very 

 closely with the C. expallidana of Wilkinson, Stainton, and 

 others, and in part with Stephens's description of rufana. 



As pointed out to me by Mr. Bankes when he examined the 

 series, the specimen of rufana might be a reddish form of B. 

 lanceolana, Hiibn,, and there is a somewhat similar example 

 from Stainton's collection in the Museum series of this species. 

 I am, however, not at all certain that the Stephens specimen is 

 referable to B. lanceolana. In liis Catalogue, previously men- 

 tioned, Stephens places rufana under '^ Grapholita" expallidana, 

 Haw., as a synonym, and he quotes Wood's fig. 989. Now, as I 

 have already stated, the specimen of rufana in Stephens's collec- 

 tion is without doubt the one figured by Wood, although it does 

 not tally in every detail with Stephens's description. It would 

 appear therefore that this description was made from more than 

 one individual. The fact of specimens with a lined ocellus (the 

 expallidana of Wilk. and Sta.) being in his series with rufana 

 strongly supports this view. But why did he afterwards merge 

 rufana in expallidana. Haw. ? Seeing that there is no mention 

 of an ocellus in the description of expallidana, Haw. and Steph., 

 it would seem that both authors had a species before them 

 which was not identical with the expallidana of Wilkinson and 

 others, and in part with the rufana of Stephens. The descrip- 

 tion of expallidana, Haw., in 111. iv. 125, reads : " Pallida, lucida, 

 tincturd costam versiis alarum anticarum icterici" ; and to this 

 Stephens adds : " Palpi long, and slightly curved over the back." 

 He further remarks : " Taken near Coombe Wood : probably not 

 strictly belonging to the genus [Bactra], but my specimen is too 

 injured to determine." I have been unable to detect any speci- 

 men in the Stephensian collection that could be the one from 

 which the above was written. 



