450 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
asserted by Couch (‘British Fishes,’ vol. iii. p. 175), who may have been 
misled by some relaxation of the muscles caused by death. The mouth, in 
fact, isa small one. At the same time and place I took a small specimen 
of Couch’s Erythrinus, Pagellus erythrinus. I shall be glad of correction 
if I am wrong, but the more I see of this fish the more convinced I am 
that it and Couch’s Spanish Bream (‘ British Fishes,’ vol. i. p. 235) are the 
same species in different stages of growth. There is much more difference 
between a Chad (or young Bream) and a full-grown Bream than there is 
between Erythrinus and the Spanish Bream as figured by Couch, and as 
seen by me.—THomas Cornisu (Prussia Cove, Marazion). 
PROCEEDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES. 
EnromoLocicaL Society or Lonpon. 
July 7, 1880.—J. W. Dunninc, M.A., F.L.S., Vice-President, in the 
chair. 
Mr. Jenner Weir exhibited, on behalf of Mr. J. W. Douglas, a worn 
female specimen of Noctua C-nigrwm, which had been taken on June 27th. 
Mr. M‘Lachlan exhibited a piece of sugar-cane from Queensland much 
damaged by some Lepidopterous larva, of which specimens were also 
exhibited. Without having the moth, it would be impossible to decide 
with any certainty as to the species; but, judging from the larva, he was 
inclined to believe that it was a species of Pyralis. On consulting with 
Miss Ormerod, he had come to the conclusiou that the species was not the 
same as the “ cane-borer” from British Guiana. 
Mr. W. L. Distant said that he was acquainted with the “ cane-borer” 
from Madras, and that it was not the same species as that described by 
Guilding. 
Mr. W. F. Kirby called attention to the description and figure of Pyralis 
saccharalis, Fabr., published in ‘ Skifter af Naturhistorie Selskabet,’ vol. iii. 
part 2 (1794), pp. 63-65, pl. vii. fig. 1, where the insect is represented in 
all stages. He also referred to the long account of the msect given by 
Guénée in Maillard’s ‘ Notes sur I'Tle de Réunion,’ Lep., pp.68-71. Guenée 
cousiders the insect to be allied to Schwnobius, and calls it Borer (!) sae- 
charellus. Fortunately this generic name will not stand, as Guilding’s name 
of Diatrea has the priority. 
Miss E. A. Ormerod exhibited specimens of Tomarus bituberculatus, 
Sphenophorus sacchari(with cocoon), and Rhyncophorus (? palmarum, cocoons 
and pupa), and read the following note on ‘* Cane-borers ”:— 
“Tn the course of last autumn it was mentioned to me that, in addition 
to the species of cane-borer previously noticed, another kind (which was 
