32 



Lepidoptera, of all orders, has for many years been the 

 most thoroughly worked, and it is probably for this reason 

 that " new species " are less frequent than in some other 

 orders, and the addition of some three or four species during 

 the past year is by no means a poor total. Perhaps one of 

 the most interesting of them is the "plume" Stenoptilia 

 graphodactyla, Tr., which was reared in August last by 

 Paymaster Gervase F. Mathew from larvae found feeding in 

 the flowers of marsh gentian (Gentiana pneumonanthe) , near 

 Wimborne ; he also took the imago by beating mixed herbage 

 in the neighbourhood of the food-plant (" Ent. Record," 

 1906, p. 245). The marsh gentian occurs throughout Europe, 

 except the extreme north, but the range of the moth appears 

 to be more restricted, extending from the Alps to the moun- 

 tainous districts of Hungary. In Britain the plant is said to 

 be more common in the northern than in the midland and 

 southern counties. It seems strange that, in these circum- 

 stances, the moth should have established itself at a com- 

 paratively low elevation near our south coast, and is another 

 example of how we may sometimes turn up a new species in 

 even the most unlikely of places. 



Mcsophlcps silaccllns, Hub. — a very distinct species — was 

 captured by Mr. A. C. Vine on the downs near Brighton, 

 and identified by Mr. Eustace R. Bankes from the specimens 

 sent to him by the captor (" E. M. M., 1906, p. 28). 

 Blastotere glabratella, Z., another Tineid, was taken by Lord 

 Walsingham from an old spruce-fir hedge in his kitchen 

 garden at Thetford (" E. M. M.," 1906, p. 169). Both 

 species were taken in sufficient numbers to suggest that they 

 are fully established in this country. 



At the meeting of this Society, held on December 14th, 

 1905, Dr. T. A. Chapman exhibited two Arctiid larvae that 

 had been sent to him by Mr. H. Murray, who had taken 

 them on a waste piece of ground at Carnforth, and who said 

 that he had captured a similar one at the same place a few 

 years previously. The larvae, although somewhat resembling 

 N emcophila plantaginis, L., did not appear to agree exactly 

 with that species (" Proc," 1905, p. 103). Unfortunately 

 the larvae failed to produce imagines, although placed in 

 most experienced hands. Mr. Murray, who knows the larva 

 of N. plantaginis intimately, expressed his opinion very 

 strongly that they were not that species, and Dr. Chapman, 

 after further investigating the matter, has practically no 

 doubt in referring them to Pyrrharctia isabclla, Abbot and 

 Smith., a species that apparently is common in many parts 



