178 [August, 



alpestrana a synonym of suhsequana, Hw., referref] monticolana , Dp., 

 to that species. 



The original drawin^;s (on vellum) of Godart and Duponchel's 

 work are in the Merton Library ; they are as beautiful and accurate 

 as the published plates are bad, indeed, it would be no exaggeration 

 to say that better drawings have never been made, and I doubt if they 

 have ever been equalled. The figure of monticolana, Dp., represents 

 undoubtedly the species known as mercuriana, Hb., and is indeed an 

 excellent drawing of it. Hence it follows that monticolana, instead 

 of being referred to suhsequana, must sink as a synonym of inercurinna. 



Stainton was acquainted with the errors that had been made with 

 regard to this insect. In the account of his second visit to the Enga- 

 dine (Ent. Ann., 1871, 6), in recording the extreme abundance of 

 Pafnplusia monticolana, Dp., he adds the following note : — 



" In Staudinger and Wocke's Catalogue, Alpestrana, Hervich-Schaffer, is given 

 as a synonym for the insect ; but Herrich-Schaffer's insect is not the species I mean, 

 wliich is quite recognizably figured by Duponchel in his fourth supplementary 

 volume, pi. 83, f. 3, under the name of Coccyx monticolana, and has no affinities with 

 the unicolorous DichroramphcB, to which Herrich-Schaifer's Alpestrana seems nearly 

 related." 



Stainton's remark is certainly justified, for omitting the evidence 

 now produced from an examination of the original drawing, Dupon- 

 chel's figure, though not good, "is quite recognizably figured," and 

 certainly does not look at all like a Dichrorampha. 



Barrett, Ent. Mo. Mag., IX, 20, 7 (1872), under the head Dichro- 

 ramplia plumhagana, Tr., calls attention to Dr. Wocke's errors in 

 Staudinger's Catalogue, especially in his treatment of plumhagana, 

 Wilk., but himself makes the mistake, which he repeats in a subsequent 

 paper, Ent. Mo Mag., X, pp. 245, 247 (1874), of confounding suhse- 

 quana, Hw., w'hh pi/gmceana, lib., failing to recognise that pi/gmceana, 

 Hb., is not the fygmaeana of Wilkinson, although he rightly separates 

 " monticolana, Mn.," from these species. 



Snellen, Vlind. v. JSTed, Micr.,404 (1882), considered monticolana. 

 Dp., synonymous with herhosana, Brt., but this is really tanaceti, Stn. 

 The corrected synonymy of this species should be as follows : — 

 1243— MEECURiANA, Frol., Enum. Tortr. Wiirt., 73 — 4, No. 170 (1828) : Samml., 

 Eur. Schm. (text) Tortr., U (1831) ; Hb. (Gey.), Tortr., pi. li, 322 (1831) ; 

 H.-S., Sehm. Eur., IV, 272 — 3, pi. xlvi, 326 (1849) ; Ld. Wien., Ent. Mts., 

 in, 342 (1859) ; Hein., Schm. Deutsch. Tortr., 218—9 (1863) ; Stgr. & Wk., 

 Cat. Lp. Eur., II, No. 1243 (1871). 

 = suhsequana, Stph., 111. Br. Ent., Haust. IV, 136 (1834) ; Wd., Ind. Ent., 

 1021 (1839) ; Stph., List. Br. An. B. M., X, Lp. 52 (1S52). 



