34 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
a Second Supplement to his ‘ Historical Review of the genus Acentropus ;’ 
and the author, writing in June, 1875, prefaces it with the welcome 
announcement that he has worked up the literature to the present time, 
‘as in all probability I shall be able in this summer to complete the history 
of the mode of life and the different stages of A. niveus.’ 
“Whether this expectation has been fulfilled, either in 1875 or 1876, 
I do not know. But, however this may be, I am sure Heer Ritsema will 
be glad to learn that, though he and I failed to convince Newman that the 
genus is properly placed in the Lepidoptera, we did make a convert of 
Doubleday. In a Supplement to his ‘Synonymic List of British Lepi- 
doptera,’ published in 1878, Doubleday for the first time admitted 
Acentropus into that order. Its precise place in the order is not indicated, 
but it is immediately followed in the Supplement by a species of Ebulea 
(Botyde), which sufficiently shows that the position which Doubleday 
would assign to Acentropus is in or near the Hydrocampide. 
“It may possibly be remembered that, in a paper which the Society did 
me the honour to publish in the ‘ Transactions’ for 1872 (pp. 121 and 281), 
I adduced some arguments tending to show that there is really one species, 
and one only, of this genus; and in a note on p. 156, the position is thus 
summed up;—‘I am quite in accord with Ritsema when he says that 
A. Hansoni, Garnonsii, Neve, badensis and germanicus are not specifically 
distinct from A. niveus; but I go a step further, and say that A. latipennis 
is identical with A. Hansoni.’ Ritsema is now satisfied that A. latipennis 
is identical with A. Hansoni, but still thinks that there are two species, of 
which one (A. niveus, Oliv. = A. Garnonsii, Curt.) has a female with 
rudimentary wings, and the other (A. latipennis, Méschl. = Zancle Hansoni, 
Ste.) has a female with normally developed wings. Doubleday, in the 
Supplementary Catalogue already mentioned, does not go into the synonymy 
at length, but records one species only, under the name of A. niveus, giving 
latipennis as a variety, thus :— 
AcENTROPUS NIvEUS. Niveus, Olivier? 
latipennis, Moschl., var. 
“T am not able to throw any further light on the specific identity or 
distinctness of the two forms. Ritsema, however, refers to his having found 
many specimens, all males, at Arnheim, and to the capture at Huissen 
(near Arnheim) of a winged female, which he recognises as A. latipennis. 
‘By this capture’ (says he, at p. 15), ‘I am fortified afresh in the opinion 
that there are two species... .. For it would be otherwise inexplicable that 
amongst the innumerable winged individuals captured by me at Overween, 
uot a single female occurred, and that I, by breeding from larve coming 
from the same place, obtained only females (in number already amounting 
