1894.] Ill 



Note on Thermolia furnorum, Eov. — In the Ent. Mo. Mag. for this year, p. 

 53, Mr. McLachlan says that I have considered Lepisma domestica, Pack., and 

 Thermobia furnorum, Eov., identical (Ent. Amer., vi, p. 233). But this is not the 

 case, for I have expressly said (loco citato) , that these insects are congeneric, but 

 specifically distinct. As the name ThermopMla is pre-occupied, I think Newman's 

 generic name must be substituted for it, and I would now prefer to call the insect 

 Lepismodes furnorum, Eov. — E. Beegeoth, Tammerfors, Finland : April, 1894. 



[I acknowledge Dr. Bergroth's correction, with thanks. To me it appears 

 highly probable that the insects are specifically identical. Whether the few words 

 I quoted {ante p. 53) from Newman's note can in any way entitle the generic term 

 Lepismodes to acceptation, seems to me highly doubtful. Newman, as editor of the 

 " Zoologist," attached so little importance to it that he omitted it from the Index 

 to the volume. — E. McLachlan]. 



Xanthia ocellaris alive at Wimbledon. — On September 27th last, I took at 

 sugar on Wimbledon Common a specimen of a Xanthia which was entirely new to 

 me. As I was quite unable to identify it, I sent the insect to Mr. Barrett for his 

 opinion, but as he was on the point of leaving home for some considerable time, the 

 specimen remained with him until his return. He has now very kindly identified 

 the insect as Xanthia ocellaris, Bork., but strangely, it appears not to be of the usual 

 European form, but is the var. lineago, which Staudinger records only from the 

 Altai Eange. This being the case, it appears possible, as Mr. Barrett suggests, that 

 the specimen may have been accidentally introduced by some means, e. g. from a 

 garden, though the part of Wimbledon Common where I took the insect is a long 

 way from any garden. It is a very fresh and perfect specimen, having apparently 

 only just emerged. — E. H. Taylor, 52, Mimosa Street, Fulham : March, 1894. 



The larva of Mamestra anceps. — At a Meeting of the City of London Entomo- 

 logical Society, held on February 2nd, 1894, it is reported, " Mi". Prout exhibited a 

 specimen of Mamestra anceps, which he had bred in January from a larva found 

 feeding on grass in the Isle of Wight." As this is only the second time the insect 

 has been bred in this country, the following extracts from a letter I received from 

 the late Mr. Buckler, dated October Vth, 1882, giving particulars of all that was 

 known of the larva in this country up to that time will prove interesting ; and, as 

 doubtless his figures are still in existence, it would be very desirable that they should 

 appear in the next or some following volume of his " Larvae of British Lepidoptera ." 

 — J. Gi-AEDNEE, Hartlepool : April \Oth, 1894. 



" Some yeai's ago the Eev. H. Harpur Crewe's Parish Clerk picked up in a field 

 a larva, which he took to him, and from it he bred Mamestra anceps. Subsequent 

 finds of what looked like the same larva produced Apamea basilinea. But many 

 years ago Mr. Eobson sent me several larvae which he said were M. anceps ; he 

 reared them from eggs on garden lettuce. They grew to be Ij inches long, and were 

 fed on the same food, but several died, one only going to earth in November, but no 

 molh resulted. Therefore, without this proof of identity, I was not sure what 

 species I had figured — for I think I took two figures — and certainly I have never 



