106 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
at Haling, August 20th, 1907. In the hedge there was whitethorn, 
sloe, oak, and beech. I believe the food plant of the larva is yet to be 
discovered. As far as I am aware this species has only been taken in 
Eneland. 
Arqyresthia ephippella, Fab.—Chiswick, 1915. Very conspicuous 
when at rest on the dark stems of cherry trees. It flies round the 
trees in the late afternoon. On one occasion [ saw a large number 
flying over and settling on some elm bushes. They evidently came 
from an adjacent orchard to enjoy the warmth, as the sun was shining 
hotly on the elms. This species here, as elsewhere, seems to be very 
constant in its markings. 
Argyresthia nitidella, Fab.—Chiswick, Kingsbury, 1915, Richmond, 
Wimbledon. Very common in hedges and on the stems and leaves 
of thorns. On August 8th last a hedge on one side of a lane near 
Kingsbury was, to use the only suitable expression, almost alive with 
this species. ‘They were mostly worn. ‘This is a variable moth, and 
there is one very striking aberration: ab. ossea, Haw. The type is in 
the British Museum, and may be described as follows :— 
Ground colour of forewings white with a slight ochreous tinge. There is a 
trace of the median streak and the fascia is visible on the dorsum. Apical cilia 
dark brown with a pale line at the base, preceded by a distinct dark brown line at 
the edge of the wing. 
Specimens of this form occur without any trace of markings and 
look very different from the ordinary nitidella. I took one at Wimble- 
don in 1905 and another, marked like Haworth’s type, at Richmond, 
1909. 
I have seen specimens connecting the aberration wlth the typical 
form. In the Zooloyist for 1849, Appendix p. v., Stainton described, 
as a new species of this genus, a moth which he named purpuras- 
centella. He remarks that this new species approximates so closely to 
A. nitidella, that he at first took one of his two specimens for a 
variety of that species. His finest specimen, the one he described, he 
beat out of birches with A. retinella, near Carron in Stirlingshire. 
The second specimen he took at Sheffield from a hawthorn hedge, 
“alone with nitidella and ephippella.”’ In the Insecta Britannica, p. 
183, he again describes this insect, and remarks, “I do not feel quite 
confident that it is distinct from nitidella.”” In the Manual published 
five years later he omitted it. In consequence of Stainton’s own 
remarks, subsequent writers naturally considered the insect, named 
purpurascentella, to be an aberration of A. nitidella, but this is not the 
case. Mr. J. H. Durrant and the writer have examined Stainton’s 
type specimen, which is in the British Museum, and find that it is a 
rather small specimen of Aryyresthia spiniella, Zell., under which it 
must sink as a synonym. When Stainton wrote he did not know the 
spiniella of Zeller, but considered it, doubtfully it is true, to be the 
semitestacella of Curtis. The Sheftield specimen is still smaller and 
worn. Why Stainton should have connected these specimens with 
nitidella remains a puzzle. 
Aryyresthia retinella, Zell—Combe Wood, Wimbledon, Richmond, 
1914. Not rare among birches. It varies much in the extent of the 
