NOTES ON COLLECTING. EY / 
How came it that in the case of the tree first referred to, and that 
one only of dozens looked at, the Tortrix pupated on the bark. It 
certainly did not look as if it was defoliated in excess of the others, 
leaving no places for pupation in the foliages; it was bare enough of 
leaves, but certain other trees seemed more so. 
A fortnight or so earlier, birches and oaks and other trees had 
plenty of winter geometer (Hibernia, etc.) larvee, but these were not in 
evidence on the Ranmore oaks, possibly most had gone down, but the 
abundance of 7’. viridana showed that their assistance was not at all 
necessary to produce the devastation observed.—T. A. Cuapman, Betula, 
Reigate. June, 1918. 
Turr’s British Lermortera, Vou. I.—I was much interested in 
Mr. Parkinson Curtis’ article on Tutt’s British Lepidoptera, and can 
confirm some of his statements. My father gave Stainton on one or 
two occasions a long list of his captures at Bloxworth; then in the 
Blandford postal district, and Stainton recorded all these as taken at 
“ Blandford,’ I remember my father telling me that Stainton was 
never at Blandford himself, and I think it issafe toassume that Tutt’s 
“‘ Blandford (Stainton) ”’ should really be ‘‘ Bloxwo1th (Cambridge).”’ 
The case is not so clear in regard to “Wareham.” My father collected a 
good deal in one or two localities just outside that town—especially 
on the heath in the direction of Morden Park, and in the Water- 
Meadows between Wareham and Stoborough, and the Wareham 
records (e.g., of Micropteryax seppella and thunbergella) are, I believe, 
correct, though the species so recorded were also taken at Bloxworth. 
The record given by Tutt for Nepticula salicis, viz., Glanvilles 
Wootton (Cambridge) is very doubtful, my father was, I think, never 
at Glanvilles Wootton in the days when he was collecting Nepticulae, 
and the species is common at Bloxworth. The record was probably 
made by C. W. Dale. The record of N. ruficapitella from Bloxworth 
is also an error, and that of N. anomalella covers N. fletcheri as well. 
*‘ Bloxworth ” is also wrongly given by Tutt as a locality for Phryxus 
livornica; the two specimens in my father’s collection were taken 
respectively at Dorchester in May 1860, and at Warmwell in May, 1904. 
(It happens that I have been spending my odd time, since his collection 
came into my possession, in labelling with localities, etc., the 
specimens about which there is any certain record in his notes or in 
my own. Unfortunately he did not keep a record of every specimen). 
What Mr. Curtis says of Bloxworth as a locality is, of course 
perfectly true; it owes its extraordinary productiveness to its position 
at the junction of the heath, the clay and the chalk; and I can also 
confirm his remark on the fastidiousness of Noctua ditrapezium in the 
matter of soil. ; 
I should add that Frederick Bond was often at Bloxworth, and 
knew that it was 9 miles from Blandford, but even he used to record 
Bloxworth specimens under “ Blandford.” —A. W. Pickarp-CamMBRIDGE, 
St. Catharines, Headington Hill, Oxford. June 19th 1918. 
Norres rrom Dorset.—I have done no collecting yet but have seen 
a fair amount about. Stauropus fagi g sitting on a fence at Park- 
stone on the 12th June. Bryophila perla on 13th June is early, is it 
not? but it is coming out freely now. Yesterday at Poole I got 
