ON THK GENERIC NAME RHYACIONIA. 89 



a number of pupae left in my care that year, 1905 (from larvae 

 collected by Mr. Moss in 1904) and from observation of the 

 insect itself in its natural haunts, I should say that even where 

 it does occur it will never be very plentiful at any one time. 

 Those I had, emerged in a desultory fashion from July 1st to 

 30th, one or two each day, and never more than five on one day. 

 Outside, on July IGth, Mr. Geo. Holmes and myself, after four 

 hours' hard work, secured only nine specimens (four fresh, five 

 worn). We missed five, but may possibly have captured some 

 of these again later in the day, so that the insect was certainly 

 not common on that day. But I have not the slightest doubt 

 that, had wo visited the localities from day to day, we might 

 have taken fresh reticulata up to the first week in August. We 

 were rewarded, however, for sparing the perfect insect in July by 

 the discovery of the larvae in fair number throughout August 

 and September. 



The flight of E. reticulata is quick and jerky, not of long 

 duration, for they soon seek shelter among the leaves of the 

 surrounding trees. The extremely rough nature of the ground, 

 remarked upon by Mr. Moss in his former paper, makes their 

 capture something of a feat. The rich colour of the fore wings 

 is most distinct, even when the moth is flying, and notwithstand- 

 ing the excitement which always accompanies the pursuit of a 

 rare insect, it is impossible to mistake it for anything else. 



I regret that I did not find it possible to photograph the 

 larvae in situ. The figures, however, show the general form of 

 the larva and its usual resting postures during the daytime. 

 Fig. 2 had to be coaxed into position for the camera, though, as 

 stated before, the attitude depicted is a common and charac- 

 teristic one of the full-(jroivn larva in a state of nature. 



ON THE GENERIC NAME RHYACIONIA, Hb. 



By Edward Meyrick, B.A., F.R.S., &c. 



I SHOULD be sorry if Mr. South's commendation of the sub- 

 stitution of this name for lietinia should attract others into a 

 deceptive morass. An inspection of the facts as recited by Prof. 

 Fernald will show that the supposed fixation of types by Stephens 

 is accidental only ; I (and others) hold that his restrictions are 

 not valid unless intentional. As the true hastana is not British, 

 Stephens did not, by merely failing to mention it, exclude it from 

 either of his two uses of the name. Further, by using the same 

 name for a subgenus and genus within three pages, he evidently 

 did not regard the first use as conflicting with the second, and 

 therefore the first use was not intended to be generic, and there- 

 fore was not. Again, in the generic use, though he misapplied 



