158 THE entomologist's record. 



to be considerable differences in the larvae and pupse. Crewe adds {op. 

 cit., p. 121) that " the larva of E. tamarisciata, Frr., Guenee, p. 332, 

 seems somewhat to resemble that of E. innotata. Since this was 

 written we appear to have got little or no further. 



I was much astonished, some three or four years ago, when corres- 

 ponding with the late Mr. P. B. Mason respecting these insects, to find 

 that he was inclined to agree with the continental dictum so far, at 

 least, as Eitpithecia fraxinata and E. innotata are concerned, but I 

 pointed out to him that the continental opinion and British opinion 

 were equally untrustworthy, because the first-named species was 

 scarcely known to the continental entomologists, whilst the latter was 

 scarcely known to British lepidopterists, and I suggested further, that, 

 till the two insects had been reared side by side, I, for one, should 

 consider them as abundantly distinct, the conditions of their environ- 

 ment, their habits, and their foodplants being so entirely different. 

 At the same time, I suggested that the possibility of E. innotata and 

 E. tamarisciata being the same species was a matter on which the 

 German entomologists ought to be able to give a decided opinion, since 

 both species were well-known to them, and should be comparatively 

 easily compared; however, such material as I had been able to examine 

 led me to suppose that it was quite possible that the two insects were 

 distinct, and that careful comparison in the early stages would give 

 some points of difference that would help to substantiate the minor 

 details of difference observable in the imagines. 



Barrett treats the two species we get in Britain as distinct, and 

 rightly so in my opinion, but still some comparative studies ought to 

 be made by those who are in a position to rear both species, and it 

 would be well if those who are conversant with the larva on Artemisia, 

 maritinm (and A. vuhjaris) would attempt to make the necessary 

 observations and comparisons with that on Eraxinns excelsior dimvag 

 the coming season. 



[It is a remarkable coincidence that, just after I had prepared this 

 note for publication, I met, at the Natural History Museum, South 

 Kensington, Mr. Holmes, of Sevenoaks, who had two specimens of an 

 Eupithecia bred, amongst several others, by his wife, from larvse taken 

 in Cornwall last year on tamarisk, and which one had little difficulty 

 in referring to E. tamarisciata, a form, or species, not hitherto recorded 

 from Britain. It behoves British entomologists, therefore, to bestir 

 themselves, and prove or disprove the specific identity of these insects. 

 In our opinion we have here three British species, whilst Staudinger's 

 Catalog suggests that they are but one as shown by the synonymy 

 quoted supra.'] 



:^ E M I P T E R A . 



Aneurus l^vis. Fab., from the north of England. — Whilst at 

 a field meeting of the Vale of Derwent Naturalists' Field Club, held in 

 Ghopwell to-day, I found the very flat- and curious-looking Hemipteron, 

 Aneurus laevis, Fab., in extraordinary profusion beneath the rather 

 loose bark of a fallen oak. They occurred, huddled together, beneath 

 the bark on one side of the tree for nearly the whole length of the 

 fallen trunk, and were mostly mature, though a few of the larval and 

 nymph forms were taken for examination. Aneurus apparently poses 



