174 THE ENTOMOLOOIST's RF.rORD. 



many points of importance with the results arrived at hy various 

 Avoi-kers, and such points of disap^reement are not altoi^ether best dealt 

 Avith in a work in which results are chronicled rather than criticisms 

 indult>ed in, a little matfazine space may perhaps be occupied in the 

 attempt to clear up any misconceptions that appear to have arisen, 

 with a view to obtaining outside criticism as much as to suggest that 

 any final conclusion has been reached. 



in the Juit. Mo. Ma;/., xxxiii., p. 127, Mr. Barrett gives an account 

 of various forms of Sdlcnuhiae, among others, an account of one which 

 ]\Ir. Hamm sent him from the neighbourhood of Eeading, and to this 

 was appended a note from Lord Walsnigham, v.hilst the account itself 

 contained an important quotation from a letter sent by Dr. Chapman. 

 Knowing that I was working at this group Mr. Hamm collected nnd 

 sent me a plentiful supply of cases, not only from the l^'OT •■ >■ 

 but also from a ss'^ond coV^'ir.' -^t -^ i'-:^'-- ■'^■^l||r< . 



ficinl r\\^r ,i.ses, ihuse trwui the isvs; 



io'julij, aii .> . JL less lichen-covered, being 



dark in colour ; fchoot-. from the second, an old untarred fence, also 

 lichen-covered, being much paler. Still, in spite of this general 

 difference, and in spite of somci variation in the cases, inter se, some 

 examples from the two batches were practically identical. I bred some 

 females, took descriptions of the egg, &c., and, having finished with 

 them, handed the cases over to Dr. Chapman. 



It would appear (lac. cit., pp. 127-129) that there was a tendency 

 to consider the Reading species distinct from S. inconsjiiciidla, as 

 known near London and in Lancashire, on the following grounds : — 



1.^ — The different form of the case compared with that of S. inconxjncueUa, 

 from (I beheve) Prestwich Wood (Chapman). 



2. — The cases coal-black in colour (Barrett). 



3. — The ? with two more joints in the antenna than in that of the ? of 

 S. inc()n!<piciu'Ua (Chapman). 



4. — The extent to which the ovipositor was protruded in the dead ? (Barrett). 



'). — The absence of the broad, white, satiny patch of scales (Barrett). 



C. — The dark colour of the ? — "the whole surface darker' (Barrett); the 

 female blacker than ,S'. pineii (Walsingham). 



With the cases and females before me I made the follow- 

 ing notes : — 



1 and 2. — The cases vary in shape, some rounder, some more trigonal in 

 section. Barrett's note that they are "coal-black" will not apply to more than one 

 or two in ten. Both lots of cases vary much in tint, those from the once tarred 

 fence distinctly darker on the whole. 



'A. — The antennae not dealt with. [With more abundant material. Dr. Chap- 

 man informs me that the Eeading specimens are identical with S. hu'dn.-piciii'Ua in 

 this respect.] 



4. — The ovipositor in the living insect is a grand one, and works maivellously. 

 Is it worth while discussing the distance it is lelt protruding in dead specimens ?. 



■5. — This is the most serious point, because, if true, one would have accepted the 

 insect, without doubt as a distinct species. One can only suppose Barrett must 

 have had females that had laid their eggs and used their white satiny down, when 

 he says that they have none. The patch in the Heading females is splendidly 

 developed, and the way in which the little cavity is tilled to overtiowing with this 

 white silky material, which she afterwards deposits with her eggs, is quite remark- 

 able in a newly-emerged female. 



0. — The living female is certainly not black. It is yellow in colour, with fine 

 black lines (? hairs) on the outer edges of the dorsum of the abdominal segments. 

 These lines (? hairs), give a very peculiar effect when seen through the pupal skin, 

 just before an insect is about to emerge. Dried specimens, previously more or less 



