362 r August, 



shoulder-stripe projects a little on the outside about the middle of the wing, as in 

 D. hippophaes. Except the dark part near the costa, it is scarcely marked. Should 

 this be a new species, as is very probable, Erschoff proposes for it the name I). 

 insidiosa." 



I have seen no later notice of this insect ; but the indications, though brief, 

 appear to be sufficient to identify it, if it should be re-discovered ; and now that the 

 insects of Central Asia are so much studied, I thought that I might, perhaps, prevent 

 its being re-described as new, by calling special attention to it, especially as it was 

 not included in the Zoological Record for 1874. — W. E. Kiebt, Zoological Depart- 

 ment, British Museum (Natural History), South Kensington : June 21st, 1889. 



Fumea (?) limulus, Rogenhofer. — Under this name, Herr Rogenhofer describes 

 and figures a very singular case, and a portion of a larva therein contained (Verhandl. 

 z.-b. Gresell. Wien, xxxix, p. 60 [1889]). The case is from Ceylon, and Rogenhofer 

 is no doubt correct in referring it to the Psychida, according to the larval remains 

 and the terrestrial habitat. But it is, without doubt, the same case that I described 

 and figured in this Magazine, vol. i, p. 125 (1864), as Trichopterous, from examples 

 in the British Museum. I then knew nothing of the larva that formed them, nor of 

 its habits. And holding the opinion that names should not be applied to cases or 

 larvae only, left them nameless. — R. McLachlan, Lewisham, London : July Wth, 

 1889. 



Lepidoptera of Norway. — My paper from Bergen (vol. xxiv, p. 127) contains 

 many errors, and certainly ought not to have been sent to this Magazine for publi- 

 cation ; the only excuse is, that it was intended to give my immediate impression 

 of the differences between a day's collecting in Norway, and a day in England, at 

 the same time of the year ; it was, therefore, written at the spur of the moment, 

 without possible reference to books or specimens. 



It is always unwise to speak, except very doubtfully, of uncaught insects : — 

 " de non existentibus et de non apparentibus, eadem est ratio," there can be no 

 proof; it would be very difficult to convince myself that I did not know such an 

 old friend as Satyrus Semele when I saw it, but it seems equally hard for me to 

 believe that the JSrebia seen by me was " Ligea ;" certainly, my Bergen insect seemed 

 to me of a warmer redder-brown than the Norwegian " JSrebia Ligea " usually is ; 

 however, it is of no use defending my eyes here — it was not possible to see a species 

 not found in the country. With regard to Vanessa urtica, having had a very clear 

 view of it settled on a flower, it seemed to be the form " polaris," it certainly was 

 unusually dark, and very different from English specimens, or from those seen by 

 me a few weeks after at Christiania ; and it is as well here to mention that the 

 darkest "polaris" in my collection was bred by myself from one of a large number 

 of larvas of V. urticce collected by me in the Visp Valley ; however, I do not wish 

 to shelter myself under the chance of an accidental aberration, as this undoubtedly 

 was. 



The specimen of Pararge, which was actually taken, shall be referred to 

 hereafter. 



I cannot in any way defend myself from a charge of carelessness in misnaming 

 the Chionobas, taken at Jerkin, for C. Noma it undoubtedly is ; I had C. Jutta 



