TALAEPORIA (bANKESIA) STAINTONI. 257 



from Dr. Staudinger, similar specimens under the same name, evidently 

 from the same Parisian source. 



If Dr. Rebel were correct in separating the Cannes species from the 

 true ronspiinatrlla, and in this I entirely agree with him, the question 

 arises whether M. Constant is equally correct in his recognition of the 

 Parisian specimens as identical with his own, in which recognition he 

 appears to be at variance with Stainton's opinion, since the supposed 

 conspioratclla from Southampton is certainly not the same as the 

 Cannes species, although Stainton thought he remembered having 

 seen specimens in a mixed series taken in March, 1867, at Fontaine- 

 bleau. As Stainton had no opportunity of comparing the specimens 

 together, there is no sufficient reason at present for distrusting Con- 

 stant's determination, and we may presume that the Parisian species is 

 the same as the more southern, and, therefore, not the true conspurca- 

 tella. 



It should be obvious at least that the Paris species referred to by 

 W. Constant cannot be the one of which de Reaumur found females in 

 that neighbourhood (subsequently named lapitlAla by Gcize), for lapi- 

 della conforms to the genus J.ujfia, Tutt, in its pectinate not ciliate 

 antenna, and in its more pointed case, and could not, therefore, be 

 mistaken for conspurcatella. Stainton's type of Solenobia iloiujlasii 

 (thanks to Dr. Mason and Mr. Tutt) is now before me, it strongly 

 recalls, and has actually been mistaken for, >itaintoni. One might pre- 

 sume that this conformity would be also indicated in the larval stage, 

 but in any case neither dowilasii, rcrnella (Cnst. MS.), nor staintoni 

 are identical with the true conspnnatella. 



Should anybody be so fortunate as to breed a $ of pumonae, or 

 active enough to get up before sunrise to catch doiiiilasii, it would not 

 surprise me if they turned out to be the same. 



Bankesia montanella, sp. n. 



Antenncc biciliate (2^) ; pale cinereous, banded with pale brownish-fuscous. 

 Palpi loosely clothed, pale cinereous. Head and thorax brownish-cinereous. Fore- 

 u-ings slightly shining, pale yellowish-cinereous, with pale brownish-fuscous speckl- 

 ing on the basal half, becoming less frequent beyond the middle and more con- 

 fluent around the apex and ternien, where it forms a series of small irregular spots ; 

 a spot of this confluent speckling occurs about the middle of the costa. and is 

 followed by a rather more conspicuous costal spot a little beyond it, with two or 

 three, less noticeable, between this and the apex ; on the dorsum is also sometimes 

 a confluent spot before the middle ; in the amount of confluence of the darker 

 shade-speckling, specimens vary considerably, the tendency to such confluence being 

 to form a shade at the base, one or two shade-spots on the cell, the outer one always 

 at its end (in addition to the marginal and apical spots already noticed) ; the cilia 

 are of the pale ground-colour of the wing, but show a slight brownish-fuscous shade 

 running through them near the base, not, however, reaching to one-half of their 

 length. Ej-j). al. llunn.-l'2nnn. Hindwiiuis pale grey; cilia shining pale greyish- 

 cinereous. Ahdumeii greyish-fuscous. Legs pale brownish-cinereous, tarsi very 

 faintly pale-spotted. Type i (81,616) Mus. Wlsm. ( ? ignota). Habitat Corsica— 

 Vizzavona, May yth-1.5th, 1896 (2(5 specimens, Wlain.). 



This appears to be most nearly allied to M. Constant's Cannes 

 species, but is distinguishable by the larger proportion of the pale 

 ground-colour on the forewings, especially between the end of the cell 

 and the apex ; the hindwings are also somewhat more acutely pointed. 

 I am unacquainted with its'larval habits, not having met with the case, 

 although 1 carefully searched the many rocks which crop up among 

 the mass of low junipers [Jioiipenis sahiHo), over which the male tlies 



