NOTES ON THE FUMEIDS. 



128 



founded on are two examples in the collection of Mr. Clark and three in 

 that of Dr. Mason. All are from the collection of Mr. R. Mitford, and 

 those in Mr. Clark's collection labelled by Mitford "n. sp.," but without 

 indication of where he obtained the specimens or on what ground he 

 considered them to be new and distinct. The specimens are faded and 

 not in the finest condition. In general aspect they are very like the 

 small {nitidella) form of i*^. casta, with an expanse of about 11mm. The 

 form of the wing seems to differ a little from typical F. casta, the base 

 of the inner margin being much less produced in a rounded curve, the 

 base of the wing being consequently narrow and the costa and inner 

 margin are less nearly parallel, but diverge at a wider angle. The 

 antennffi are 17- or 18- jointed (I have not mounted a specimen), and 

 the length of the tibial spur is '71 and -73, the lowest figure I have 

 met with in casta being -77. The wing form is so dependent on 

 accidental circumstances of setting that it is difficult to place much 

 reliance on it. Is this the species exhibited at the meeting of the 

 Ent. Soc. of London, March 4th, 1861, and noted as "Psi/che'? 

 Apparently a very distinct species allied to P. rohoricolella , but the wings 

 much more rounded, as in P. radieUa" {ride, Zool., p. 7453) ? These 

 examples might be regarded as very small M. crassiorella, if we could 

 assume a range of variation in M. crassiorella so great as to allow of a 

 race of 11mm. and at the same time allow the antennal joints to 

 diminish to 17 or 18 (anterior tibia, pi. iv., fig. 39). 



(3) 3/. hihernicella. — There are two specimens from Glengariff in 

 Mr. Richardson's collection which not a little resemble J/, mitfordella in 

 general facies, and one in Mr. Fletcher's collection from the same 

 locality. These have an expanse of 13mm. -14mm. Mr. Richardson's 

 differ a little in facies from Mr. Fletcher's specimen, but I have already 

 noted that setting and accidental circumstances affect this more than 

 any real difterence, and the present is I think a definite case in point, 

 since the three specimens are from the same locality, have the 

 same wing expanse, 19-20 antennal joints, and a spur length of -67 

 and -74. These are smaller than typical M. crassiorella, and have only 

 20 antennal joints at most (19 I think, but have only counted them 

 on the specimens), so that they seem to be too distinct a race to be sunk 

 as a var. of 3f. crassiorella (anterior tibia, pi. iv., fig. 30). 



(4) M. subjiavella. Mill. — -This is a Riviera species described by 

 Milliere, and he separates it from others by colour, and I think cor- 

 rectly, an exception in this matter to prove the rule. He very strongly 

 insists that the yellowish-brown colour, with rather darker hind 

 margin, is definitely so in freshly emerged specimens. If a variety it 

 could only be of M. crassiorella, from which it differs further in being 

 smaller and broader and shorter winged. It agrees with 21. crassiorella 

 in having 24 antennal joints and a tibial spur length of -72, expanse 

 12mm. -13mm. (vide, pi. iv., fig. 36, anterior tibia). 



(5) M. edwardsella, Tutt. — These are four specimens bred by Mr. 

 Tutt from larvae collected at Aix-les-Bains by Mr. Stanley Edwards and 

 myself. They much resemble 21. subjiarella, but are smaller, viz., 

 11mm. in expanse, and have only 20 joints to the antennae ; the tibial 

 spur length is -70. The specimens are not in good condition, and 

 rather suggest B. reticidatella in the looseness of their scaling, but this 

 may be the result of want of condition. There may be some grounds 

 for suspecting that these are Bruand's M. saxicolella. The latter is, 



