914 LORD WALSINGHAM ON THE [Nov. 26, 



specimen fi'om Tenerife as 0. distaiis, suggesting that it may be a 

 spring form of Lis Canarian laetus, and in Standinger and Rebel's 

 Catalog (II. 1314) he treats laetus plus distans as two broods 

 \nider one special name. In his last paper [Ann. KK. Hofmus. 

 XXI. 43 (1906)] he retains both names, possibly through being 

 unable to refer to the single specimen which he had recorded as 

 laetus. 



I found lain^ae at Giiimar, feeding in March on the crowns of 

 young plants of Andryala pinnatifida, completely covering them- 

 selves with the woolly debris of the consumed leaves ; these pro- 

 duced up to the beginning of May typical forms of Oxyptilus 

 distanSjWhioh I have compared satisfactorily with the actual types 

 described by Zeller from Syracuse. They are, to all appearance, 

 similar to all that I have pi'eviously bred from flowers and leaves 

 of Andryala sinuata at Cannes and elsewhere. I have preserved 

 specimens of the larvae for comparison with others from Europe. 



Pteropliorus laetus Z. Isis 1847. 903 no. 442 \ Pterophorus 

 {Oxyptilus) laetus Z. Lin. Ent. VI. 346 no. 11 (1852) -. Oxyptilus 

 laetus Rbl. Ann. KK. Hofmus. YII. 262-3, 282 no. 36 (1892)^ : 

 IX. 16, 81 no. 138 (1894) ^: XXI. 43 no. 174 (1906)'. Oxyptilus 

 distans Z. (II) laetus Stgr-Rbl. Cat. Lp. Pal. II.' 71 no. 1314^ 

 (1901) ^ Oromhrugghia laetus Tutt Br. Lp. Y. 459-60 (1906) \ 



Hah. S. EUROPE. WC. ASIA. N. AFRICA. Canaries '-'— 



La Palma, 25. VIII. 1889 {Simony)'' — Tenekife : Bajomar, 25. 

 V. 1907 {msm.); 10. VIII. 1889 {Simony)'— Gnm Canaria : 

 Bco. de los Chorros (San Mateo), 1. VIII. 1890 ; Mogan, Bco. de 

 los Hornos (Mogan), 4-20. VIII. 1890 {Simomj)\ 



The only examples apparently agreeing with Zellei''s type of 

 Oxyptilus laetus were met with at Bajomar, on the sea-coast, 

 where they were easily distiu'bed from flowering plants of 

 Andryala pinnatifida; I brought home only three specimens, 

 some full boxes being lost in my hui'iy to return to a waiting- 

 conveyance. These specimens are unifoi-mly characterised by 

 their slightly smaller size, by the lighter brown, rather than 

 greyish, shade of the forewings, and by the notably bronzy brown 

 tint of the hiiidwings, not to be found in my series of distans 

 from the higher elevations. Tutt (Br. Lp. V. 450-1, 454-9) veiy 

 strongly contends that there are two distinct species imder the 

 above names, and certainly seems to prove his case, but except 

 perhaps by a careful examination of the genital segments, not 

 yet undertaken, I confess to being unable to distinguish them 

 with certainty thi'ough an extensive series, bred and captured 

 from many remote localities. It seems indeed quite possible that 

 these Tenerife specimens, obviously attached to the same plant, 

 but at different dates and altitudes, may represent successive 

 broods rather than truly distinct species. I suggest this without 

 in any way disputing Mr. Tutt's conclusions, founded as they 



